Things continue to go from bad to worse for Uber Inc. with the Delhi Government banning the service, as it has also been revealed that the driver alleged of raping a passenger had previously been jailed for rape, and the company may be charged with negligence for allowing the rape to occur by failing to follow safeguards.

As we covered earlier, an Uber driver is alleged to have attacked a 27-year-old woman Friday night (November 5th). The woman in a report to police stated that after she fell asleep in the car, she woke to find herself in a secluded spot where the driver raped her, before threatening to kill her if she went to the authorities.

Uber replied by condemning the rape while attempting to defend its record, stating that ““Safety is our #1 priority and in India.”

The Economic Times reported that the Delhi Government (an area that covers the Indian capital of New Delhi) has banned Uber on the basis that it is “misleading customers,” but seemingly on a technicality of licensing: Uber does not hold a  license for an “All India Permit Taxi” meaning they are not allow to ferry customers from point-to-point.

The Government went further by stating that they will “also be issuing a public notice saying Uber is not authorised to provide any taxi services in the capital so that customers are aware which are the authorised radio Cab services. Uber is not a authorised radio cab service.”

Uber has been banned in cities before, but this is where it gets worse: turns out the driver who is the alleged attacker in this case had previously been jailed for rape.

NDTV reported that the accused driver, 32 year-old Shiv Kumar Yadav, was imprisoned for seven months in 2011 while facing trial for a rape charge in very similar circumstances: he had picked his victim while driving a taxi.

The report is not clear on what happened next, only saying he was “let off after a compromise.” In India that could mean one of a few possible outcomes:

 .

• he was let free given time served for the crime, given India’s appalling record with dealing with rape cases
• he paid a bribe to be released
• he made some sort of settlement with the victims family to end the matter, financial or otherwise

 .

What is clear is that the case didn’t end up finding him innocent or guilty, what ever the word “compromise” is meant to be double speak for.

If that’s bad enough, it gets even worse again for Uber: not only are Police investigating why the company never did a background check, they are also considering if a case of criminal negligence can be made, as if Uber had followed safeguards, the rape may have been prevented.

This isn’t the first time Uber has been accused of being lax on background checks, but it is the first time it has resulted in a rape.