Mumbai, April 11, 2022 (Mumbai Crime News): The Additional Sessions Judge, Sonali P. Agarwal, at the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Siraj @ Raju Ansari, a 38-year-old labourer, accused of rape and offenses under the Information Technology (IT) Act. The case, registered under C.R. No. 643 of 2021 at Mankhurd Police Station, involves allegations of rape under Sections 376 and 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 67 and 67(A) of the IT Act pertaining to the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form.
The bail application, Criminal Bail Application No. 733 of 2022 (CNR NO. MHCC02-004215-2022), was heard on April 11, 2022. Advocate Mr. Bhimrao A. Tayade appeared for the applicant/accused, Siraj Ansari, while APP Karwate represented the State of Maharashtra.
According to the prosecution’s allegations, the informant, who was facing financial difficulties, was befriended by her neighbor, the accused, who initially provided her with ₹15,000 as help. Subsequently, the accused allegedly expressed his feelings for the informant and, taking advantage of her inability to immediately repay the money, allegedly established sexual relations with her without her consent.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused lured the informant to his friend’s house under the pretext of work and reiterated that she wouldn’t need to repay the money if she complied with his demands, leading to further non-consensual sexual acts. It was also alleged that the accused recorded videos of these sexual encounters and took nude photographs of the informant.
After the informant disclosed these incidents to her sister and managed to repay the ₹15,000, the accused allegedly continued to harass her. He allegedly called her, threatening to send the videos and nude photos to her husband and children and make them viral online if she refused to meet him. To substantiate his threats, he allegedly sent her the videos and photos. The prosecution contended that the accused continued to issue threats, pressuring the informant to maintain sexual relations, which ultimately led to the filing of the FIR.
The applicant-accused, Siraj Ansari, argued that the informant had borrowed money from him with the promise of repayment. He claimed that when he asked for the money back, she became angry and filed a false case against him. Ansari further contended that he and the informant were in a love affair, and she had willingly visited his house multiple times for consensual sexual relations, even expressing a desire to marry him. He also stated that he was the sole earning member of his family and pleaded for bail.
The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that if released, the accused was likely to threaten the informant and other witnesses and might abscond.
In her order, Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal highlighted the prosecution’s allegations that the accused exploited the informant’s poor financial condition by providing her money and then using her vulnerability to establish sexual relations and create incriminating videos and photographs. The court noted the serious allegations of threats made by the accused after the informant repaid the money, allegedly using the videos and photos to coerce her into continuing sexual relations.
Judge Agarwal reasoned that if the informant had indeed been in a love affair with the accused and had borrowed money, it would be more likely for her to request more time for repayment rather than file a false rape case against her lover. Therefore, prima facie, at the stage of investigation, it appeared that the accused had indeed threatened the informant with the viral dissemination of her videos and nude photos to coerce her into sexual relations. The court also noted the prima facie appearance that the accused exploited the informant’s financial distress.
Considering the serious nature of the allegations and the potential threat to the informant and prosecution witnesses, Judge Agarwal concluded that releasing the accused on bail at this stage would not be proper, as there was a strong possibility of him intimidating the witnesses.
Consequently, the court passed the following order:
- Criminal Bail Application No.733 of 2022 is rejected.
- Criminal Bail Application No.733 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
This order underscores the court’s concern for the safety and security of the victim in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault and the misuse of technology for coercion. The denial of bail indicates the court’s preliminary assessment of the evidence and the potential risk posed by the accused if released. The case will now proceed further with the accused remaining in custody.