Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 21, 2022 – Balachandran Ganeshan Devendran, accused of rape, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal, raised questions about the consensual nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant, considering the duration and circumstances of their interactions.

Devendran was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 64 of 2022, registered at the Shahu Nagar Police Station, and was charged under sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape by a person in a position of authority), 417 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The complainant alleged that she and Devendran became acquainted in 2017 when he visited his maternal uncle, who lived near her. They developed a romantic relationship, with Devendran promising marriage. The complainant alleged that Devendran had sexual relations with her under the pretense of marriage, starting in March 2017. Later, in September 2017, the complainant discovered that Devendran had married another woman. Despite this, they allegedly resumed their sexual relationship in 2019, continuing until December 2021. The complainant alleged that Devendran eventually refused to marry her, leading to the filing of the FIR.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

Devendran, through his advocate Aalekh Wagh, contended that he and the complainant had a consensual love affair before his marriage but that there was no promise of marriage due to differences in their communities and social status. He claimed that the complainant continued to contact him for sexual relations despite knowing he was married. He argued that all sexual interactions were consensual.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Meera Choudhary-Bhosale, opposed the bail, stating that Devendran had not yet produced his mobile phone as evidence and that he might abscond as he is originally from Tamil Nadu.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Agarwal, after hearing both sides, noted that the complainant continued to have sexual relations with Devendran even after learning of his marriage in September 2017. The court observed that the prolonged sexual relationship, spanning from 2019 to 2021, raised questions about the consensual nature of the interactions.

The court also cited a precedent from the Bombay High Court in Mahesh Balkrishna Dandane v. The State of Maharashtra, which emphasized that a major and educated woman is expected to understand the consequences of engaging in sexual relationships. Based on these observations, the court found merit in Devendran’s contention that the relationship was consensual.

Bail Conditions:

The court granted bail to Devendran, subject to the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Bond (PB) and Surety Bond (SB) of Rs. 15,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must not threaten or cause injury to the complainant.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• He must cooperate with the police investigation.
• He must attend the concerned police station every Thursday between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM until the police file the final report.
• He must not leave Mumbai without informing the Investigating Officer and providing his out-of-Mumbai address and contact number.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence any witnesses.
• He must provide his mobile number, phone number, and all addresses to the Investigating Officer and inform them of any changes.

Outcome:

The court’s decision highlights the complexities of determining consent in sexual relationships, particularly when they continue over an extended period. The imposed conditions aim to ensure Devendran’s cooperation with the investigation and prevent any potential interference with the legal process. The case underscores the judiciary’s consideration of the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account the duration and nature of the relationship between the involved parties.