Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Sessions Court in Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Mr. Namdev @ Nitin Ramdas Gajare (40), who was arrested on charges of rape, aggravated rape, and criminal intimidation. The court noted the serious allegations, including a prima facie finding that the accused, a married man with two children, obtained the victim’s consent through a false promise of marriage.

Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal (C.R. No. 41) issued the order on April 7, 2022, in Criminal Bail Application No. 690 of 2022. Gajare was booked by Pantnagar Police Station under C.R. No. 161 of 2022 for offenses punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution’s Allegations: A Deceptive Relationship

The prosecution, represented by APP Mrs. Meera Choudhary-Bhosale, presented the following case:

• The informant (victim), a 19-year-old girl, became acquainted with the accused approximately one and a half years before lodging the FIR and began chatting with him on WhatsApp.
• The accused’s wife discovered the chats and confronted the informant.
• In December 2021, the accused allegedly grabbed the informant’s hand, expressed a desire to marry her, and threatened to commit suicide by coming under a train if she did not talk to him. He also allegedly threatened to harm her.
• In January 2022, under the pretext of marriage, the accused allegedly took the informant to a room in Kamrajnagar twice and had sexual relations with her.
• On March 21, 2022, while the informant and another person named Vinayak were heading home, the accused reportedly approached them on a two-wheeler, took the informant’s mobile phone, and demanded she accompany him to Panvel.
• Despite the informant’s requests for her phone back, the accused allegedly compelled her to go with him. In Panvel, he again proposed marriage and had sexual relations with her against her wishes in a room.
• After the incident, he returned her mobile phone, dropped her off, and left.
• The informant, after returning home and being questioned by her sister and family about her overnight absence, narrated the entire incident, leading to the lodging of the FIR.

Defense’s Contention: Consensual Relationship

Advocate Mr. Satish S. Mande, representing the applicant, argued that the FIR itself acknowledges the accused is married. He contended that both the accused and the informant knew each other for four years, and their friendship was even known to the accused’s wife. Mr. Mande asserted that the sexual intercourse was consensual and, therefore, could not be labeled as rape. He also claimed the informant was aware of the consequences of maintaining a sexual relationship with a married man and pleaded for his client’s release on bail.

Court’s Analysis and Rejection of Bail

Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal considered the arguments from both sides and the case material. The court took particular note of the victim’s age, stating she was “hardly 19 years old girl.”

The court acknowledged that the FIR indicated the victim knew the accused was married. However, the crucial aspect for the court was the allegation that the accused, despite being married with two children, “gave promise of marriage to informant and further gave her threats that he will commit suicide by coming under railway if informant does not talk with him.” The court found that these actions, coupled with the alleged sexual relations, suggested a fraudulent inducement.

The judge observed: “prima facie it appears accused obtained consent of informant fraudulently by giving her false promise of marriage though he was very much aware that he is married having two children.” The court emphasized that it appeared to be a case of a “false promise given by accused with sole intention to seduce victim to indulge in sexual activity.”

The court also distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the defense (Vishal Vijay Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra, Bholasingh vs. State of Maharashtra, and Mohammed Aamir Ansari vs. State of Maharashtra), noting that the current case involves a younger victim, immediate filing of the FIR, and specific allegations of false promises and threats from the inception of the relationship. Unlike the cited cases, where consensual sexual relations and a breach of promise were considered, here the court found prima facie evidence of a deceptive intention from the start.

Given that the “matter is at the investigation stage” and the victim is only 19 years old, the court concluded that releasing the accused on bail at this juncture could lead to him threatening or luring witnesses, tampering with evidence, or absconding.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the court determined it would not be proper to release the accused on bail at this stage. Consequently, Criminal Bail Application No. 690 of 2022 was rejected.