1
BA No.916/2024
MHCC020057732024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.916 OF 2024
Shriram Poonja
Aged 45 years, Occu. : Business,
R/at. : Flat No.709, Manish Sunflower
Co-op. Society, Andheri,
Mumbai-400 053.

..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Bandra
Police Station, Mumbai in
C.R. No.223/2024).

..Respondent
Appearance :Advocate Mr. Rishab Khot for the applicant.
APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari for the respondent/State.
Adv. Shreya Shrivastava for intervener/informant.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No. 29.
DATED : 20/04/2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.

Applicant/accused who is arrested in Crime No.223/2024 for
the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N), 377, 417, 500 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code has filed this second successive application for bail under
Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution filed reply at
2
BA No.916/2024
Exh.5 and Advocate for intervener/informant filed written argument at
Exh.6 and opposed the application for bail.

2.

I have heard Advocate Mr. Rishab Khot for applicant, APP Mr.

R.V. Tiwari for prosecution and Advocate Shreya Shrivastava for intervener.

3.

It is alleged that, applicant came in contact with the informant
in August 2020 and developed relations with her. Applicant frequently
maintained sexual relations with the informant since August 2021 till
December 2023 under pretext of false promise of marriage. In December
2023, informant noticed nude photos and videos of applicant with some
other ladies and on that count, dispute cropped up between them.
Applicant refused to marry with the informant and then she realized that
applicant sexually exploited her. Hence, the informant lodged FIR.
4.

Advocate for accused submitted that, the first bail application
was rejected on the ground that one lady xyz filed complaint against the
applicant leveling same allegations and this Court observed that applicant
is in habit of giving false promise of marriage and sexually exploit ladies.
Another reasons for refusing bail were investigation was in progress and
threats given by sister of the applicant. Now the investigation is completed
and charge-sheet is filed. In view of this change in circumstance, present
application is filed.
5.

Advocate for accused further argued that, the investigation
officer has not recorded statement of lady xyz or the statements of any
other ladies whose photos with the informant in nude position were found
to the informant in the phone of the applicant. His said phone of Samsung
3
BA No.916/2024
Company is seized by police. Advocate for accused pointed from FIR that
the informant had booked hall for marriage, but because of not having
completed process of divorce of informant with her husband, marriage was
not taken place on 10.12.2022. Applicant had given present of diamond
ring to the informant. It shows that there was no intention of false promise
of marriage since inception. Advocate for accused further argued that,
investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Applicant is ready to
abide any condition to avoid tampering of evidence. Hence, advocate
prayed to allow the application. Advocate for accused relied on following
rulings –
“i.

Naim Ahamed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC
89.
ii.

Mohd. Abrar Shadruddin Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 12891.”
5.

APP instructed by IO submitted that, charge-sheet is filed
against the applicant/accused in Metropolitan Magistrate, 12 th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.

Applicant/Accused has committed serious offence of
rape against the women. If released of bail, accused may pressurize or give
threats to the informant and tamper the evidence. He may flee away out of
India. Hence, APP prayed to reject the application.
6.

Adv. Shreya Shrivastava for intervener/informant submitted
that, the initial physical relations between applicant and informant were
consensual. However, after divorce of informant, the physical relations
were not consensual as the applicant was only giving promise of marriage
without performing the same. He used force on the informant for
maintaining relations. Applicant had not produced decree of his divorce
with the bail application nor shown it to the informant. Police had not
4
BA No.916/2024
seized laptop and I-phone of applicant in which there might be nude photos
and videos of applicant with other ladies. Even statements of other ladies
and lady xyz are not recorded by the police. If released on bail, applicant
may give threats or pressurize the informant. He may flee away out of India
to avoid the trial of the case. Hence, Advocate for intervener prayed to
reject the application.
7.

I have considered submissions and perused the record. It
appears from FIR that, informant maintained physical relations with the
applicant even prior to divorce with her husband. It shows that there was
consensual physical relations initially in between them. Therefore, it cannot
be said that there is misconception of fact under Section 90 of IPC to attract
the provision of rape for physical relation by obtaining consent under
pretext of false promise of marriage. FIR itself shows that applicant had
fixed hall for the marriage to be performed on 10.12.2022 which could not
take place for not having completed process of divorce of informant. It also
appears that applicant had given present of diamond ring to the informant
on 12.02.2022. These incidents shows that there is no false promise of
marriage or intention to not perform promise of marriage since inception.
Whether the physical relations were rape under backdrop of these facts is a
matter of trial.
8.

It appears from say of police that, now investigation is
completed and charge-sheet is filed. Hence, further pre-trial detention of
applicant/accused for indefinite period till conclusion of trial is not
required. Upon perusal of charge-sheet, it appears that statement of the
lady xyz is not recorded, so as to shows habit of applicant/accused to
exploit ladies under promise of marriage. Inspite giving photographs of
other ladies by the informant, there is no statement of any single lady
5
BA No.916/2024
recorded by police to show such habit of applicant/accused. So far as
threats to informant is concerned, conditions can be imposed on the
applicant/accused. For the above noted reasons, I hold that applicant is
entitled for bail with conditions. Hence, I pass following order :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.916 of 2024 in CR No. 223/2024 is allowed.
2. Applicant Shriram Poonja be released on bail by executing P.R. bond of
Rs.30,000/- and one or two sureties of like amount.
3. Applicant shall not enter in the locality of residence and workplace of
informant and not to contact and give threats or induce to informant and
any other witnesses in any manner and not to tamper with the evidence of
the prosecution.
4. Applicant shall attend concerned police station as and when called and
to give his proof of residential address and contact number to investigation
officer and update the same time to time.
5. Applicant shall deposit his passport with the investigation officer within
8 days from release from jail and seek prior permission of the Court
whenever he intent to travel abroad.
6. Bail Application No.916 of 2024 in CR No. 223/2024 stands disposed off
accordingly.

Sd/Date : 20/04/2024
(N.G. Shukla)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
Greater Bombay
6
BA No.916/2024
Reupload
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Typist
Upload date and time
Name of the Judge
: Mrs. Shravanti Karre
: 23rd April, 2024 (At 05.21 p.m.)

H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.29)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 20th April, 2024
Order signed by P.O. on
20th April, 2024
Order uploaded on
23rd April, 2024