Mumbai, Maharashtra – February 3, 2022 – A 48-year-old bank clerk, Govinth Munisamy Mopur, was denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai in a case involving allegations of rape, repeated sexual assault under false pretenses of marriage, and forced medical termination of pregnancy. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal, rejected Mopur’s bail application, citing the serious nature of the allegations, the breach of trust involved, and the potential for witness tampering.

Mopur was arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2022, registered at Kurla Police Station, under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape by a person in a position of authority), and 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Allegations of Exploitation and Betrayal:

According to the prosecution, Mopur, a senior clerk at Canara Bank’s BKC branch, befriended the complainant, a junior colleague, in 2019. In September 2021, he allegedly lured her to a hotel in Kurla under the pretext of discussing something important. There, he allegedly promised to marry her and engaged in sexual intercourse.

The complainant further alleged that in October 2021, Mopur again promised marriage and took her to another hotel, where he had sexual relations with her and secretly recorded videos and took obscene photos. He allegedly shared these videos and photos with a friend, Rakesh, who then informed the complainant.

The complainant claimed she became pregnant and that Mopur pressured her to terminate the pregnancy, initially against her will. He allegedly promised to marry her with the consent of his family and then coerced her into taking abortion pills. Subsequently, he allegedly rented a room where they stayed together for 15-20 days. However, he later refused to marry her, leading her to file a police complaint.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Rebuttal:

Mopur’s defense, led by Advocate Jigar K. Agarwal, argued that the complainant, who had been married twice before, had concealed crucial information about her marital history. They alleged she had filed a complaint against her second husband at Titwala Police Station and that she was a 39-year-old adult who had willingly engaged in a relationship with Mopur.

The defense also claimed that the complainant had extorted money from Mopur, that the allegations regarding the abortion pills were vague, and that she had taken the videos and photos herself to blackmail him. They alleged that the complaint was filed after he asked her to return the money.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhary-Bhosale, argued that they needed to investigate the abortion pills and that Mopur might threaten witnesses and abscond if granted bail.

Judge Agarwal rejected the defense’s arguments and denied bail. The court emphasized the complainant’s allegation that Mopur had repeatedly promised marriage and then engaged in sexual intercourse, distinguishing the case from those cited by the defense where consensual relationships were established.

The court also dismissed the defense’s claim that the money transfers were due to blackmail, noting that Mopur had not filed any complaint regarding extortion. The court stated that the accused’s marital status did not preclude him from making false promises of marriage.

Court’s Reasoning and Concerns:

The court highlighted the breach of trust involved, given Mopur’s position of authority over the complainant. It also noted the allegation that he had shared intimate videos and photos with a third party.

“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,” Judge Agarwal stated in the order.

The court expressed concern that releasing Mopur on bail could lead to witness intimidation and tampering with evidence.

“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,” the court concluded.

The denial of bail underscores the court’s stance on cases involving breach of trust, sexual exploitation, and forced medical termination of pregnancy. The case is expected to proceed further in the trial court.