Mumbai, March 27, 2024: In a significant ruling, the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai granted bail to Rahul Ramchandra Rajbhar, a 25-year-old accused in a rape case, on the grounds that the alleged sexual relationship between him and the complainant appeared to be consensual. The bail was granted by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, who also imposed strict conditions to ensure compliance with the law.
Case Background
Rajbhar was arrested on December 18, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 695/2023 registered with the R.C.F. Police Station. He was charged under Sections 376 (rape) and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, a 25-year-old married woman, alleged that Rajbhar had forcibly established a sexual relationship with her since 2021, under the pretext of marriage. She also claimed that she became pregnant as a result of the relationship and that Rajbhar had refused to marry her.
Arguments Presented in Court
Rajbhar’s defense, led by Advocate Shrijeet V. Raorane, argued that the accused was falsely implicated. The defense contended that the complainant had willingly entered into a relationship with Rajbhar and that the FIR was filed out of revenge after he broke off the relationship upon learning that she was already married.
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhari-Bhosale opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. She pointed out that the complainant was pregnant, and a forensic DNA report was awaited to establish paternity. She further argued that if Rajbhar were granted bail, he could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Court’s Observations
After reviewing the case record, Judge Kawdikar noted several crucial aspects:
- The complainant, though claiming to be abandoned by her husband, was still legally married and thus not available for marriage with Rajbhar.
- The first alleged instance of sexual relations occurred in 2021, but the FIR was lodged only on November 27, 2023—almost two years later.
- The complainant willingly visited Rajbhar’s residence and continued the relationship for an extended period, indicating that the relationship was consensual.
- Given the circumstances, it was unlikely that the promise of marriage could be considered a valid ground for alleging coercion.
The court determined that continued incarceration was not warranted, especially since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had already been filed.
Bail Conditions
While granting bail, the court imposed the following conditions on Rajbhar:
- He must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- He must report to the R.C.F. Police Station on the first and third Sunday of every month from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. until the conclusion of the trial.
- He must not contact the complainant, her family, or witnesses, directly or indirectly.
- He must not upload any videos or photographs of the complainant on social media.
- He cannot leave India without court permission.
- He must provide his permanent and temporary addresses and cannot change his residence without informing authorities.
The court also warned that any breach of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail.
Legal Implications
This ruling highlights the judiciary’s careful approach in handling sexual offense cases where long-term consensual relationships are involved. The case underscores the importance of distinguishing between genuine cases of sexual violence and situations where allegations arise from personal disputes.
Legal experts note that courts are increasingly scrutinizing cases where rape charges stem from relationships that ended on a bitter note. While the judiciary remains firm on punishing sexual offenders, it also seeks to prevent the misuse of rape laws for personal vendettas.
Conclusion
Rajbhar’s release on bail does not imply acquittal, and he will still face trial in Sessions Case No. 137/2024. The final verdict will depend on the complete evidence presented during the trial, including the awaited DNA report. Meanwhile, the court’s decision to grant bail with strict conditions ensures that justice is served while safeguarding both the complainant’s rights and the accused’s liberty.
