Mumbai, February 6, 2024: The City Civil and Sessions Court in Greater Mumbai has granted bail to businessman Pratik Wadkar, who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1201/2023, registered at Santacruz Police Station for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The bail order was issued by Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla on February 2, 2024, following arguments presented by Advocate Madan Gupta on behalf of the accused and Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rashmi Tendulkar representing the prosecution.
Case Background
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant and the accused had been in a romantic relationship since January 2023. The complainant alleged that Wadkar had sexually exploited her under the false pretext of marriage. The FIR stated that the two met on June 18, 2023, when the accused allegedly induced the complainant into a sexual relationship by promising marriage. The complaint further mentioned that in August 2023, the accused invited the complainant to Lonavala, where they stayed together in a hotel for three days and again engaged in sexual relations. However, when the complainant later confronted Wadkar about marriage, he allegedly avoided her calls and ultimately refused to marry her.
Defense Arguments
Advocate Madan Gupta argued that the complainant, who is 28 years old, had voluntarily entered into a consensual relationship with the accused. He emphasized that every breach of a marriage promise does not constitute rape or cheating. The defense counsel cited multiple judicial precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, which highlight that a consensual relationship, even if it eventually does not culminate in marriage, does not automatically amount to rape under Section 376 IPC.
The defense further pointed out that Wadkar and the complainant were relatives and that the complainant had willingly accompanied the accused to Lonavala. The advocate argued that there was no element of coercion or force, and the complainant was well aware of the circumstances surrounding their relationship. The accused had already been in judicial custody since January 13, 2024, and was willing to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, the counsel added.
Prosecution’s Objections
APP Rashmi Tendulkar, appearing for the State, opposed the bail application, arguing that Wadkar had deliberately deceived the complainant by falsely promising marriage. She contended that the accused’s refusal to marry after engaging in sexual relations demonstrated inducement and deception. The prosecution also submitted that the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and other witness testimonies were yet to be recorded. There was a possibility that the accused might tamper with evidence if released on bail, the APP stated.
Court’s Observations and Decision
After examining the arguments and case details, Judge N.G. Shukla observed that the complainant had voluntarily engaged in a relationship with the accused. The court noted that the complainant’s decision to stay with the accused in Lonavala for three days indicated consensual involvement. The court referred to past rulings emphasizing that not every failed relationship can be considered rape and that emotional, psychological, and social factors must also be taken into account.
Judge Shukla held that the accused had not forcibly coerced the complainant into a sexual relationship and that conditions could be imposed to prevent any interference in the investigation. Consequently, the court granted bail to Pratik Wadkar on the following conditions:
- Wadkar must furnish a personal bond of ₹30,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount.
- He is prohibited from contacting, threatening, or influencing the complainant or other witnesses in any manner.
- He must appear at the concerned police station on the 1st and 3rd Monday of each month until the conclusion of the trial.
- He must provide his residential address and contact details to the investigating officer and update them if changed.
With these conditions in place, the court allowed the bail application, stating that the accused could not be held in prolonged custody when the facts suggested consensual relations.
Legal Implications
This ruling reiterates judicial perspectives on consensual relationships and their legal implications. Courts have consistently held that breach of a marriage promise alone does not constitute rape unless the promise was made with deliberate intent to deceive. The case also highlights the importance of differentiating between consensual relationships and those involving coercion or deception.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case remains significant in the ongoing discourse about consent, promises of marriage, and the evolving judicial interpretations in such matters. The accused remains bound by the bail conditions, and further legal scrutiny will determine the final outcome of the case.
End of Report