::1::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
CNR NO.MHCC02-001161-2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO. 21 OF 2022
Govinth Munisamy Mopur
Age : 48 Years, Occ.: Service
R/at Flat No.005, A7, Sagar Deep
CHS, SPPL Colony, Opp. New Fire
Brigade, Behind Penta Galaxy
Antop Hill, Mumbai – 400 037.
Got shifting from old place of
Residence as per Aadhar Card
Room No. G.N.X.397, Vijay Nagar,
Dharavi Cross Road, Dharavi,
Mumbai – 400 017.

…Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Sr. Inspector of Police Kurla
Police Station, Mumbai in
C.R.No.21/2022)
…Respondent
::2::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Jigar K. Agarwal for the applicant/Accused.
APP Mrs. Meera Choudhary – Bhosale for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H.THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SONALI P. AGARWAL (C.R. NO. 41)
DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2022.
:ORDER:
This is an bail application filed by accused under section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cr.P.C.”) for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.21/2022
for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 313 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
registered with Kurla Police Station.
2.

Heard argument of learned counsel for accused and learned APP
for the State.
Allegations of prosecution in short are as under:3.

Prosecution has alleged that in the year 2019 at Canara Bank,
BKC applicant was appointed as clerk and he was senior to informant.
Informant and he became good friend. In September 2021, accused told
informant he wants to tell her something important and brought her to
a hotel in Kurla. At that hotel he promised her that he will marry her
and had sexual relations with her. It is further alleged that in October
2021, by also giving promise of marriage accused took her in a hotel
and had sexual relations with her and created video of same and took
her obscene photos also. It is further alleged that he sent her such
videos and photos to his friend Rakesh. Rakesh told about the same to
informant. It is further alleged that informant became pregnant because
::3::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
of applicant and when informant refused to take pregnancy termination
medicine, applicant told her that with the consent of family members
they will marry and compelled her to take such medicine and her
pregnancy was terminated. It is further alleged that in November 2021,
he took rented room for her and applicant and informant stayed there
for 15-20 days. After some days, informant left that room and went to
stay at another address. It is further alleged that thereafter whenever
informant asked accused when they will marry he avoided to marry her.
Therefore, FIR came to be lodged with police.
4.

Applicant-accused has contended that informant was second time
married and hence her marital status was still as married then this
crime is registered. Applicant-accused has further contended that
informant has kept hidden reason behind discord between her first
marriage and what had led her to go for second marriage. Applicantaccused has further contended that informant has also lodged complaint
against her second husband at Titwala Police Station. Applicant-accused
has further contended that informant is having a 17 years old male
child but that child is 19 years old and therefore, that child is no more a
child but a married man. Applicant-accused has further contended that
informant is 39 years old major person. Applicant-accused has further
contended that informant kept physical relationship with accused as
informant might have something nasty in her mind. Applicant-accused
has further contended that informant nor accused was in process of
getting separated from their own spouses. Applicant-accused has further
contended that there is gross delay in lodging FIR. Applicant-accused
has
further
contended
that
informant
had
taken
more
than
Rs.1,50,000/- from accused. He has further contended that on various
occasions informant threatened accused and he was forced to transfer
::4::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
money in her account. He has further contended that when accused
demanded his own money back then this false FIR is filed. Applicantaccused has further contended that the allegations regarding medical
termination pills are vague. Applicant-accused has further contended
that photos and videos were taken by informant and she was
blackmailing accused by showing in her own phone so that she could
extort money from accused. Applicant-accused has further contended
that he is employee in Canara Bank and prayed to be released on bail.
5.

Prosecution has submitted that they want to inquire about
medical termination pregnancy pills given by accused to informant.
They have further stated that accused may threaten informant and
other witnesses and may not remain present for the proceeding and
objected the bail application.
6.

Prosecution has alleged that by giving false promise of marriage
accused had repeated sexual relations with informant and during such
time he compelled her to terminate pregnancy by taking pregnancy
pills. Learned counsel for accused has cited judgment of Allahabad High
Court in case of Anas v. State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application – 33534 of 2020, decided on 16-12-2020, reported in AIR
Online 2020 All 2548, in which it is held that, “I have perused the F.I.R.,
medical report and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. She has consistently
stated that on her own she has established physical relationship. When
she became pregnant the applicant got her aborted with her consent.
The entire episode clearly reveals that she was in consensual
relationship with the applicant, who at the relevant time was a major
girl.” In the case in hand, informant has nowhere alleged that on her
own she has established physical relationship but alleged that every
::5::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
time accused gave her promise of marriage and then there were sexual
relations between them. Therefore, facts of the case cited and in hand
are different. Hence, this case law is not applicable to the case in hand.
7.

Learned counsel for accused has cited Order of the Hon’ble Court
of Sessions, Ratnagiri in case of Ganesh Raghunath Amin Vs. State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No.138 of 2021, decided on
01.01.2022, in which it is held that, “considering the entire scenario, it
appears prima facie that relations between accused and prosecutrix
were consensual. Those aspects were also revealed during an
investigation on an earlier occasion by Police Sub Inspector Ahire.”
In
the case in hand, prosecution has specifically alleged that by giving false
promise of marriage accused had sexual relations with informant
repeatedly. Prosecution has further stated that they want to inquire
about medicine given by accused for termination of pregnancy.
Therefore, facts of the case cited and in hand are different. Hence, this
order is not applicable to the case in hand.
8.

Learned counsel for accused has cited Order passed by the
Hon’ble Court of Sessions At Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon,
Mumbai in case of Sachin Suresh Bidlan Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
in Criminal Bail Application No.1118 of 2021 in (C.R.No.588 of 2021 of
Vile Parle Police Station), decided on 15.08.2021, it appears in the cited
order no objection is given by informant by filing affidavit. In the case
in hand there is no such affidavit given by informant. Therefore, this
order is also not applicable to the case in hand.
9.

Accused has contended that informant was giving him threats to
show their video to other and therefore, he gave money to her and
::6::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
produced bank statement. It appears, according tho him, such money is
given in September and October 2021 and on further dates. If
informant was giving him threats and blackmailing him and then he
could have filed complaint to that effect with any authority. But there is
nothing to show the same. Merely because accused has transferred
money from his account to informant it cannot be inferred that such
money was given as threats given by informant.
10.

According to accused informant was also already married and he
is also already married and therefore, he cannot give promise to marry.
It is a matter of law that unless divorce is taken a person cannot
perform marriage again. But there is nothing to show that a person will
never give promise to marry when he is already married. Therefore,
such contention of accused cannot be considered at this stage.
11.

It appears, the allegations of prosecution are that informant had
second marriage and she has filed complaint against her second
husband and thereafter, accused met her. It shows that when accused
met informant she was staying separate from her husband. Prima facie
it appears taking advantage of this situation that she separated from her
husband and a single mother and applicant is her superior, he had
sexual relations with her by giving promise of marriage. Yet
investigation is not over. It is also alleged that accused showed video
and obscene photos of informant to one more person Rakesh. It
appears, if accused is released on bail then he may threaten witnesses
and tamper with evidence of prosecution. Hence, it will not be proper
to release accused on bail. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.237 of 2022 is rejected.

::7::
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
Criminal Bail Application No.237 of 2022 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Dt. 03.02.2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(SONALI P. AGARWAL)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay
: 03.02.2022
: 03.02.2022
: 03.02.2022
::8::
Criminal Bail Application No.237/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
04/02/2022 at 01.30 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Sonali P. Agarwal
Room No.
Room No.41)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 03/02/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.on
03/02/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
04/02/2022
(Court