Mumbai, April 12, 2025 (Bandra Court Desk): The Additional Sessions Judge at Greater Bombay has granted bail to Mr. Muzammil Abdul Shaikh (32), who was arrested in connection with Crime No. 247/2024 registered at Kherwadi Police Station. Shaikh was accused of rape under Sections 376 and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code, with the complainant alleging a false promise of marriage. The bail order was issued on April 20, 2024.

The complainant, a divorcee with two children, stated in her First Information Report (FIR) that she had known the applicant for the past 15 years. She alleged that she sought Shaikh’s help to mediate with her ex-husband, who frequently caused disturbances at her workplace. According to the FIR, Shaikh allegedly developed a relationship with her under the pretext of marriage and engaged in physical relations with her on December 7, 2023, at his residence against her will.

The complainant further alleged that when she threatened to file a police complaint, Shaikh purportedly performed an online ‘nikah’ (Islamic marriage ceremony) with her in the presence of two friends. Subsequently, Shaikh allegedly used to pick up and drop her at her workplace. The FIR further detailed two more instances of alleged rape on February 13, 2024, and March 6, 2024, at Shaikh’s second residence, claiming these acts were also against her wish. The relationship allegedly soured when, on March 22, 2024, Shaikh refused to marry her, citing opposition from his family. This led the complainant to lodge the present FIR.

Advocate Mr. Vahid Shaikh, representing the applicant, argued that the allegations of rape were omnibus and that the three instances of physical relations mentioned in the FIR appeared to be consensual. He presented WhatsApp messages exchanged between Shaikh and the complainant, suggesting that the complainant was inviting Shaikh to engage in physical relations. He contended that there was no misconception of fact regarding the promise of marriage that led the complainant to consent to the physical relations. Furthermore, Advocate Shaikh submitted that the complainant had demanded ₹ 25,000/- from the applicant, and he had made partial payments until March 5, 2024. He argued that the FIR was lodged after the applicant refused to make further payments. Highlighting that the applicant was arrested on March 24, 2024, and that the investigation was almost complete, Advocate Shaikh requested bail, assuring the court that his client would abide by any imposed conditions. He relied on several Supreme Court and High Court rulings to support his arguments.

The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. R.V. Tiwari, representing the State, opposed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the rape allegations and the ongoing investigation. He also pointed out that the applicant and the complainant resided in the same locality, raising concerns about potential intimidation or threats to the complainant if Shaikh were released on bail.

Advocate Abhishek Kase appeared for the intervener/complainant and vehemently opposed the bail. He argued that the applicant had committed a heinous crime by exploiting his friendship with the complainant and engaging in sexual relations under the false pretense of marriage. He alleged that the applicant had threatened the complainant when she insisted on marriage and expressed concerns that releasing him on bail could endanger her life.

After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, His Honour Additional Sessions Judge Shri N.G. Shukla made key observations. The court noted that the complainant had obtained a divorce in 2021 and had known the applicant for 15 years. Regarding the allegations of the first instance of physical relations on December 7, 2023, the court questioned why the complainant would continue to maintain contact with the applicant and accompany him if the initial encounter was indeed against her will and forceful. The court highlighted that despite the alleged first incident, two more instances occurred in February and March 2024. Furthermore, the court noted that the WhatsApp chats indicated the complainant’s interest and invitation for physical relations prior to the month of Ramadan.

Based on these observations and citing the rulings in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr., the court opined that there appeared to be no direct nexus between the promise of marriage and the subsequent physical relations, especially considering the three incidents occurring in different months. The court concluded that there was no apparent misconception of fact regarding the promise of marriage that led the complainant to consent to the physical relations.

Considering that the investigation was almost complete and that the applicant resided in Kherwadi while the complainant resided in Dnyaneshwar Nagar in Bandra (East), the court deemed that conditions could be imposed to prevent the applicant from entering the complainant’s residential and workplace areas until the filing of the charge sheet, thereby addressing the concerns about potential threats.

Consequently, the court passed the following order:

ORDER

1. Bail Application No. 927 of 2024 in CR No. 247/2024 is allowed.
2. Applicant Muzammil Abdul Shaikh shall be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) and furnishing one or two sureties of a like amount.
3. The applicant shall not enter the locality of residence and workplace of the complainant until the filing of the charge sheet and shall not contact, give threats, or induce the complainant and any other witnesses in any manner, and shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.
4. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called and shall provide his proof of residential address and contact number to the investigating officer and update the same from time to time.
5. Upon the oral request of the advocate, the applicant is permitted to furnish cash security of ₹ 30,000/- in lieu of surety provisionally for four weeks.
6. Bail Application No. 927 of 2024 in CR No. 247/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

The order was pronounced and signed on April 20, 2024, and uploaded on the same day. The granting of bail offers temporary relief to Shaikh, subject to the conditions imposed by the court. The case will now proceed further as the investigation concludes and the charge sheet is filed.