The dynamics of a relationship often become the central focus in legal battles involving accusations of sexual offenses, especially those under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A recent order from the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay, dated May 4, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 931 of 2024, highlights how a long-term consensual relationship, coupled with the complainant’s subsequent affirmation of consent, can outweigh the initial gravity of charges. The applicant, Shubham @ Harshal Kishor Chavan, was seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R. No. 54/2024 registered at Mankhurd Police Station. The charges were severe, including Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) (Repeated Rape), along with 427, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 66-E, 67, and 67-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court’s decision, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, focused heavily on the complainant’s “no objection” and the delay in the lodging of the FIR, ultimately concluding that the sexual relationship was prima facie consensual.
The Consensual Nature of the Relationship as a Decisive Factor
The defense, led by Advocate Mr. Sanjay Jadhav, presented the case as one of a consensual relationship. It was argued that the complainant and the accused had known each other for five years, transitioning from friendship to love in 2022, with a subsequent mutual relationship. The defense pointed out that the charge-sheet had been filed and that continued incarceration, following the applicant’s arrest on April 1, 2024, was unwarranted, especially since he lacked any criminal antecedents.
The prosecution, represented by Learned A.P.P. Mrs. Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses and the standard risk of the accused tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, or absconding. However, the most significant legal and factual shift came from the complainant herself.
The complainant filed a separate ‘say’ at Exh. 3, unequivocally stating that she “loves the accused” and that “the entire act was done with her own consent.” She further clarified that the FIR was registered against the accused due to “some misunderstanding and in anger and family pressure,” and she had “no objection” to the grant of bail. This direct statement from the victim essentially negated the fundamental element of the serious sexual offense charges—the lack of consent.
Judicial Findings on Delay and Consent
The court meticulously reviewed the FIR allegations alongside the complainant’s affidavit. The FIR itself confirmed the long-term relationship, noting the five-year acquaintance and the progression from friendship to love, with frequent meetings and conversations. While the FIR detailed incidents of threats, mobile phone damage, and abuse, the allegations of sexual relations spanned from February 2023 to November 2023, during which time the parties met repeatedly at the same lodge.
The court made two critical findings that determined the outcome:
- Consensual Relationship: The fact that the relationship was five years long, had “turned into love,” and involved frequent meetings, coupled with the complainant’s sworn statement that the sexual relationship was based on her “own consent,” led the court to conclude prima facie that the relationship was consensual.
- Unexplained Delay: The last incident of sexual relations occurred in November 2023, but the FIR was lodged much later, on February 21, 2024. The court noted that this significant delay in lodging the said FIR is not explained adequately within the record.
Based on the explicit “no objection” from the complainant, the completion of the investigation, and the filing of the charge-sheet, the court ruled that “continued incarceration of the accused is not required or warranted.”
Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal Bail Application No. 931 of 2024, releasing Shubham @ Harshal Kishor Chavan on a P.B. of Rs. 50,000/− with one or more sureties. The court imposed specific conditions to protect the complainant and the judicial process, including prohibitions against tampering with evidence and witnesses, and a mandatory direction that the accused “shall not upload any video or photographs of the complainant on Social Media”. Furthermore, he was directed to attend the Mankhurd Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer on written notice until the conclusion of the trial. This judgment serves as a reminder that in IPC 376 cases where the relationship is long-standing and the complainant later asserts consent, the necessity of custodial detention diminishes significantly.