BA No.408/2024 MHCC020027772024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.408 OF 2024
Shriram Padmanabha Poonja
R/at : B709, Manish Sunflower CHS,
St. Louis Convent Road,
Next to Manish Fist Market,
Andheri (West), Mumbai 53. ..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Bandra Police Station, Mumbai in C.R. No.223/2024). ..Respondent
Appearance :
Advocate Mr. Kushal Mor a/w Adv. Rishab Khot for the applicant.
APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari for the respondent/State.
Advocate Shreya Shrivastava for the intervener.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT ROOM No. 29.
DATED : 29/02/2024
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.Applicant/accused who is arrested in Crime No.223/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 417, 500, 506 of Indian Penal Code has filed this application for bail under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution filed say at Exh.2 and opposed the application. Informant filed written argument Exh.6 and opposed the application.
2.I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Kushal Mor a/w Adv. Rishab Khot for applicant, Learned APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari for prosecution and learned Advocate Shreya Shrivastava for informant.
3.As per allegations in FIR, applicant came in contact with the informant in August 2020 and developed relations with her. It is alleged that under the pretext of false marriage, applicant frequently maintained
sexual relations with the informant since August 2021 till December 2023. In December 2023, informant noticed some nude photos and videos of applicant with other ladies and on that count dispute started between them. On 11.01.2024, applicant called informant to his house for sexual relations. Informant refused and when she ask about photos and videos of physical relations with other ladies, applicant quarrled and refused to marry with the informant. Thereafter, again informant tried to contact with applicant, but he refused to give any explanation and demanded back diamond ring given to informant. Then the informant lodged FIR on 09.02.2024 alleging rape under the pretext of false promise of marriage.
4.Learned Advocate for applicant argued that, informant is a married woman having age of 37 years. The physical relations between applicant and informant are consensual. Contents of FIR itself shows that, the date of marriage on 10.12.2022 was fixed and it was not performed because of not having finalized divorce of the informant with her earlier husband. There were frequent fights between applicant and informant which were affecting daughter of applicant and when the applicant tried to
convince informant about the same. The informant left company of applicant. FIR itself shows that informant was staying at the house of applicant as like his wife and thus, the sexual relations between them were consensual relations. Applicant is arrested on 09.02.2024. Statment of informant under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. is reocrded. Almost investigation is completed. Further custody of applicant for filing chargesheet is not required. Applicant is ready to abide any condition. Hence, learned advocate prayed to allow the application. Learned Advocate for applicant relied on following rulings
“i.Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2071.
ii.Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 608
iii.Naim Ahamed Vs. Sate (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89.
iv.Anshul Gupta Vs. The State of Maharashtra in ABA No.1203/2019 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 15.01.2021.
v.Tinop Thankachan Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. in Criminal MC No.1819/2019 passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court at Ernakulam on 22.11.2022.
vi.Pushkar Prabhakar Pingle Vs. The State of Maharashtra in ABA No.917/2022 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 05.04.2022.
vii. Shri. Kunal Mandaliya Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.1787/2016 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 19.12.2016.
viii. Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane Vs. State of Maharashtra in ABA No.27/2014 passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 12.03.2014.
ix.The State of Maharashtra Vs. XYZ (Victim) in Criminal Application (APL) No.297/2022 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur on 24.04.2023.”
5.Learned Advocate for informant argued that, though initially informant stayed with the applicant, but the sexual relations were maintained under the promise of marriage given by applicant. Learned
advocate pointed out from the FIR that, when the informant asked about nude photographs and videos in the mobile phone of applicant seen by informant, he had not given any explanation. On the contrary, he refused to marry. This clearly indicates that, the applicant had no intention to marry and he sexually exploited to the informant under pretext of false promise of marriage. Learned Advocate referred one complaint filed by one lady XYZ, who came in contact with the applicant prior to informant. Learned advocate argued that, applicant had also sexually exploited to said lady since 2018 till 2021 and thereafter, refused to marry with her. Applicant had falsely pretended her that he was divorced. It shows that applicant had not only cheated to the informant, but also to other ladies. Learned advocate also argued that in the sexual offences, delay to lodge FIR is not ground to disbelieve the case. Sister of applicant is trying to pressurize and influence informant. Statement of other lady who is sexually
exploited by the applicant and other witnesses are yet to be recorded. If released on bail, applicant may pressurize and influence informant and other witnesses. Hence, learned advocate prayed to reject the application.
6.In reply, learned advocate for applicant submitted that, the complaint given by another lady XYZ to police on 20.02.2024 i.e. after filing the bail application by applicant. Allegation in the said complaint is
not concerned with the present crime. He argued that in the written argument by informant, it is mentioned that disciplinary inquiry against the applicant under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is going on. He had sent email to the company and in reply, the company had informed that no such inquiry is going on. That other lady had filed complaint only with the purpose to reject the bail application of applicant. Hence, it has
no significance. Learned advocate prayed to allow the bail application.
7.Learned APP almost adopted the submissions of learned advocate informant. In addition, he submitted that, applicant is involved in serious offence against the women. Investigation is incomplete. There are chances of tampering of evidence. Hence, he prayed to reject the application.
8.I have considered submissions and perused the FIR and say and written argument of informant. It appears from FIR that, applicant and informant came in contact of each other in August 2020. In February 2021, applicant firstly promised the informant for marriage. At that time, divorce of informant was not finalized. Firstly in the month of August 2021, there was sexual relations between applicant and informant under promise of marriage given by applicant. FIR further shows that applicant frequently
maintained sexual relations with the informant under promise of marriage. Admittedly, FIR shows that, hall for marriage was booked for 10.12.2022 and because of not having passed decree of divorce of informant, marriage was not taken place. However, it further reveals from FIR that, informant noticed various photographs and videos in the mobile of applicant showing his physical relations with many ladies. This is the ground starting dispute between them resulting in refusal to perform marriage by the applicant. When the informant tried to extract explanation from applicant, he straight away refused to marry with the informant. It primafacie shows intention of applicant since inception to not perform marriage and only to sexually exploit the informant.
9.Though the complaint filed by another lady XYZ is not relevant directly with the allegations in FIR, but the said complaint shows that prior to coming in contact with the informant, applicant had maintained sexual relations with said lady and lowered down her character in the office as the applicant and said lady were working in one and the same company. The complaint filed by said lady corroborates to the allegations in the FIR that, the informant had seen nude photographs and videos of applicant with the various ladies. It shows modus operandi of the applicant to maintain sexual relations with different ladies only to exploit them. Allegations in the complaint of said lady shows that applicant had maintained sexual relations with her by giving promise of marriage which subsequently not fulfilled for no reason. Even though, the company gave reply to the email of advocate for applicant that no inquiry is pending against the applicant, but it is not helpful to the applicant in view of complaint of said lady
corroborating to material seen by informant in the mobile phone of applicant. In view of this, it cannot be said that applicant had not given false promise of marriage. The conduct of applicant revealed from
allegation in FIR corroborated by the complaint of the lady xyz shows that, applicant was in habit of giving false promise of marriage and sexually exploit ladies.
10.I have gone through rulings relied by both the sides. Gist of rulings relied by applicant is about consent given by the woman for the sexual relations. There cannot dispute about the principle of law laid down in the said ruling. However, considering conduct of the applicant as discuss above, it cannot be said that the informant had given free consent for sexual relations to the applicant.
11.As per say of police, statements of the lady xyz and other witnesses are yet to be recorded. So also, investigation in respect of the photographs and videos in the mobile phone of applicant is yet to be carried out which may reveal any more things. As per submission of learned advocate for informant, sister of applicant contacted to the informant after his arrest. It shows that if the applicant released on bail, possibility of tampering of evidence cannot be ruled out.
12.In view of aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. In the result, I pass following order :
ORDER
Bail Application No.408 of 2024 in CR No.223/2024 is rejected and disposed off accordingly.
Date : 29/02/2024 (N.G. Shukla) Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer Upload date and time Name of the Judge : Mrs. Shravanti Karre : 02nd March, 2024 (At 12.07 pm.) H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.29) Date of Pronouncement of Order 29th February, 2024 Order signed by P.O. on 01st March, 2024 Order uploaded on 02nd March, 2024