Mumbai, Maharashtra – February 29, 2024 – Rohit Kisan Madane, a 31-year-old chartered accountant, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a rape case registered at the Ghatkopar Police Station.

Background of the Case:

Madane was arrested and charged under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, in connection with C.R. No. 73/2024.

The complainant alleged that she had a sexual relationship with Madane under the false promise of marriage, which he later refused.

Arguments Presented:

Madane, through his advocate P.S. Thombre, argued that:

• The sexual relationship with the complainant was consensual.
• He presented WhatsApp chat evidence to support his claim.
• He had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident of Mumbai.
• Continued incarceration was unnecessary.
• He was ready to abide by all court conditions.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (Addl.P.P.) Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• The offense was serious.
• The investigation was at a preliminary stage.
• Madane might abscond or tamper with evidence.

The complainant initially filed a “say” opposing the bail. However, she subsequently filed an affidavit giving “no objection” to granting bail to Madane.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar granted bail to Madane. The court considered the following factors:

• Consensual Relationship: The court noted that the complainant and Madane had sexual relations multiple times at various locations over a period from 2021 to 2023, suggesting a consensual relationship.
• WhatsApp Chat Evidence: The WhatsApp chat evidence did not indicate any promise of marriage.
• Delay in Filing FIR: The complainant filed the FIR on January 30, 2024, more than a month after Madane clearly refused to marry her on November 7, 2023.
• Victim’s “No Objection”: The complainant filed an affidavit stating she had no objection to Madane being granted bail.
• Lack of Criminal Antecedents and Residency: Madane had no criminal record and was a permanent resident of Mumbai.
• Continued Incarceration Unnecessary: The court concluded that continued incarceration was not necessary, considering the prima facie consensual nature of the relationship and the victim’s change of stance.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Rohit Kisan Madane on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• No Tampering with Evidence or Witnesses: He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend the Ghatkopar Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer on written notice until the charge sheet is filed.
• No Further Offenses: He must not commit any offense in the future.
• No Contact with Complainant or Witnesses: He must not contact the complainant, witnesses, or their family members directly or indirectly until the trial concludes.
• No Social Media Uploads: He must not upload any videos or photographs of the complainant on social media.
• No Leaving India: He must not leave India without the court’s permission.
• Address and Contact Information: He must furnish his permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the police station.
• Address Change Notification: He must not change his residential address without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer and the court.
• Bail Execution: The bail must be executed before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any condition would result in bail cancellation.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the consensual nature of the relationship, the victim’s change of stance, and the delay in filing the FIR when determining bail applications in rape cases. The court’s decision to grant bail reflects its assessment that continued incarceration was unnecessary, considering the circumstances of the case and the victim’s “no objection.” The court also imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence for trial and protect the complainant.