In a significant ruling on March 7, 2024, the Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri N.G. Shukla, rejected a bail application filed by an individual, Manoj Babulal Mochi, who was arrested in connection with a case of alleged sexual assault. The matter, registered as Bail Application No. 476 of 2024, related to Crime No. 64/2024 at Vakola Police Station, Mumbai, for the offense punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, after considering the submissions from both the applicant’s counsel, Advocate Mr. Tanmay Jadhav, the prosecution’s APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari, and the informant herself, found that there was sufficient prima facie material to deny the applicant bail at that stage, primarily due to the seriousness of the offense, the relationship between the parties, and the potential for evidence tampering. This case highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in granting bail, especially in sensitive matters involving sexual offenses where the victim’s safety and the integrity of the investigation are paramount concerns.

The core of the prosecution’s case, as detailed in the First Information Report (FIR), revolved around an incident that allegedly occurred in the early morning of January 15, 2024. The accused, Manoj Babulal Mochi, is the real cousin brother of the informant and was on visiting terms at her house, which was located in close proximity to his own residence. The FIR alleged that while the informant was sleeping, the accused came to her and inserted his finger into her private part. The informant woke up due to the sensation and caught the accused in the act. Upon her outcry, her brother also witnessed the incident. The accused was initially apprehended by the informant’s father and brother, but he subsequently ran away. Following the incident, the accused’s sisters arrived and apologized, but after deliberation with her parents, the informant decided to lodge a formal report, leading to the applicant’s arrest and subsequent judicial custody. This close familial relationship and the direct nature of the allegation were central to the court’s assessment of the gravity of the crime.

The applicant’s defense, presented by his advocate, attempted to weave a narrative of false implication. The main arguments put forward were that there existed a property dispute between the families of the accused and the informant. Furthermore, the defense contended that the accused had previously seen the informant with a boy and had informed her brother of this fact 2-3 days before the incident, suggesting that the report was lodged out of anger and revenge, compounded by the property dispute. The defense also pointed out that the accused had been incarcerated for over a month and that the investigation was nearing completion. They argued that the investigation, including the recording of the informant’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), could be carried out while the accused was out on conditional bail, especially since he had no criminal antecedents and was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

However, the prosecution and the informant vehemently opposed the bail application. The Learned APP, instructed by the Investigating Officer (IO), stressed that the investigation was still in progress and, critically, the informant’s statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. had not yet been recorded. The prosecution expressed a strong apprehension that if the accused were released on bail, he would pressurize the informant and tamper with the evidence. The informant, present in person before the court, categorically refuted the defense’s claims, stating that the stories of a property dispute and her being seen with a boy were false narratives. She brought to the court’s attention the serious allegation that the applicant’s sisters were threatening her, further underscoring the risk to her safety and the potential for interference in the judicial process.

In its detailed analysis of the arguments and the material on record, the court focused on the prima facie case established by the FIR. The order explicitly noted that the accused was the real cousin brother and was caught in the act, which was also witnessed by the informant’s brother. At this preliminary stage, the court found no material to disbelieve the contents of the FIR. Crucially, the court addressed the legal definition of the offense, stating that the insertion of any object in the private part of a woman is covered by the definition of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (defining rape), thereby reinforcing the serious nature of the allegation. The court found that the circumstances indeed showed the involvement of the accused in a “heinous crime.” Furthermore, the court placed significant weight on the police’s submission that the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was still pending and the informant’s allegation of being threatened by the accused’s family members. Given that the accused and the informant resided in close proximity, the court concluded that there were clear chances of tampering with the evidence and pressurizing the informant if bail was granted. Considering the totality of these factors, the court deemed it inappropriate to release the accused on bail “at least till filing charge-sheet.” The court therefore passed the final order rejecting Bail Application No. 476/2024, bringing an end to the application and maintaining the applicant’s custody. This order serves as a testament to the court’s dedication to protecting victims and ensuring that the criminal justice process remains unhindered, especially in grave offenses.