The Bombay Court of Sessions, in a detailed order on April 20, 2024, granted successive bail to the applicant, Shriram Poonja, in Criminal Bail Application No. 916 of 2024. The applicant was charged under stringent sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 376(2)(N) (Repeated Rape), Section 377 (Unnatural Offence), Section 417 (Cheating), Section 500 (Defamation), and Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation), registered under C.R. No. 223/2024 at Bandra Police Station. The Court’s decision to allow the second bail application was anchored in two major factors: the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, and a critical, preliminary assessment of whether the sexual relationship, which spanned from August 2021 to December 2023, truly originated from a “false promise of marriage.” This order is highly relevant for Indian legal blogs and discussions on the judicial interpretation of Section 90 of the IPC (Consent under Misconception of Fact) in the context of long-term relationships.
The Allegations and Grounds for Successive Bail
The informant alleged that the applicant maintained frequent sexual relations with her from August 2021 to December 2023 under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The dispute arose in December 2023 when the informant discovered nude photos and videos of the applicant with other women on his phone, leading to his refusal to marry her and her realization of being “sexually exploited.” The first bail application was rejected earlier by the Court, partly due to a separate complaint from a “lady xyz” alleging similar conduct, concerns about an ongoing investigation, and threats made by the applicant’s sister.
The defense, led by Advocate Mr. Rishab Khot, argued that the primary circumstances justifying the rejection of the first bail plea had changed: the investigation is now completed, and the charge-sheet is filed. This change, they contended, warrants a fresh look at the application. They also pointed out that the investigating officer failed to record the statements of “lady xyz” or the other ladies whose nude photos were found, suggesting a lack of concrete evidence to support the prosecution’s claim that the applicant had a “habit of giving false promise of marriage.”
Judicial Scrutiny of ‘False Promise’ and Initial Consent
In a careful examination of the FIR itself, the Court raised substantial doubts about the nature of the promise of marriage, which is central to a rape charge under the misconception of fact (Section 90 IPC). The Court observed that the informant had maintained physical relations with the applicant even prior to her divorce with her husband, suggesting that the relations were initially consensual.
Crucially, the Court highlighted actions that countered the “false promise since inception” narrative: the FIR mentioned that the applicant had booked a hall for a marriage to be performed on December 10, 2022, which was only postponed because the informant’s divorce process had not been completed. Furthermore, the applicant had given a diamond ring present to the informant. These facts strongly suggest that the applicant did not harbor an intention to not perform the promise of marriage since the beginning of the relationship. The Court explicitly stated, “Whether the physical relations were rape under backdrop of these facts is a matter of trial,” thereby shifting the onus of proof to the trial stage and away from the pre-trial detention phase.
Grant of Bail and Conditions
The Court found that the essential reason for rejecting the first application—the ongoing investigation—no longer existed. The filing of the charge-sheet meant that further pre-trial detention for an indefinite period was not required. Coupled with the preliminary observation casting doubt on the application of the rape provision, the Court held the applicant was entitled to bail, provided strict conditions were imposed to address the prosecution’s remaining concerns about influencing witnesses.
The Court allowed Bail Application No. 916 of 2024, ordering the applicant’s release upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹30,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount. The conditions imposed were highly stringent, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations:
- The applicant shall not enter the locality of residence and work place of the informant.
- He must not contact, give threats, or induce the informant or any other witnesses.
- He is required to deposit his passport with the investigating officer within 8 days of his release and seek prior court permission for any travel abroad.
This order effectively recognizes that the accused cannot be detained merely as punishment and that once the investigation is complete, the lack of sufficient prima facie evidence challenging the initial consent and intention of the accused warrants the granting of pre-trial liberty.