Mumbai, August 19, 2022 – Pratham Kalpesh Jain, a 24-year-old student from Byculla, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in a case involving allegations of rape, fraud, and criminal intimidation. Jain was arrested following a complaint filed by a 20-year-old woman, alleging repeated sexual assault under the pretext of marriage and misappropriation of gold ornaments.

The case, registered as C.R. No. 334/2022 at Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai, includes charges under sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape by a person in a position of authority), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Details of the Allegations and Arrest

The complainant alleged that between October 11, 2021, and June 18, 2022, Jain repeatedly forced her into sexual intercourse under the promise of marriage. She also claimed that Jain took gold ornaments worth ₹24,50,000 from her and threatened to upload her photographs. Jain was arrested on July 6, 2022.

Defense Arguments and Court Observations

Advocate Shah, representing Jain, argued that the allegations were false and that the complainant had filed the FIR under pressure from her father. He asserted that the relationship between Jain and the complainant was consensual, citing their love affair and multiple instances of physical intimacy. The defense also highlighted the significant delay in filing the FIR, noting that the alleged incidents occurred between October 2021 and May 2022, while the complaint was lodged in July 2022.

The defense also presented evidence, including affidavits from Jain and his parents, expressing their willingness to marry the complainant. They also pointed out that the police had already seized articles worth approximately ₹21 lakhs.

H.H. Additional Sessions Judge Mrs. Madhuri M. Deshpande, while considering the bail application, noted the following:

• The complainant is a major and an LLB 4th-year student.
• The relationship spanned from October 11, 2021, to May 26, 2022, with a considerable delay in filing the FIR on July 6, 2022.
• The prosecution had already seized articles worth ₹24,39,227.
• Evidence suggested a consensual relationship, with the accused and his family expressing willingness to marry the complainant.
• The prosecution had not requested further custody for investigation.

The court acknowledged the prosecution’s concerns about potential witness intimidation but deemed that these could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.

Bail Conditions and Order

The court granted bail to Pratham Kalpesh Jain, subject to the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹30,000 with one or two local sureties of the same amount.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or promise any person related to the case.
• He must not leave India without the court’s permission.
• He must provide his permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the court.
• He must not change his residential address without informing the investigating officer and the court.
• He must not talk with the complainant personally or by any electronic mode till conclusion of trial.
• He must not enter the vicinity where the complainant resides, works, or studies.
• Violation of any condition would lead to the cancellation of his bail.
• He must complete the bail process before the lower court.

“Considering these facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that, it will be just and proper to allow this application and to release the applicant on bail imposing some conditions,” Judge Deshpande stated in the order.

Implications and Public Reaction

The granting of bail in this case highlights the court’s consideration of the consensual nature of the relationship and the delay in filing the FIR. It also underscores the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a thorough investigation.

The case has drawn attention to the complexities of cases involving allegations of rape within intimate relationships and the challenges of proving non-consensual acts. The court’s emphasis on the complainant’s status as a major and educated individual, along with the evidence of a consensual relationship, played a significant role in the decision.