Mumbai, March 21, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Sudhir Anjani Tiwari, accused in a rape case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, presiding over Court Room No. 41, allowed Tiwari’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 301 of 2024), citing the prima facie consensual nature of the sexual relationship and the completion of the investigation.

Tiwari was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 55 of 2024, registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, for offenses under sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the FIR, the complainant, who was divorced in 2022, was a college friend of Tiwari. They reconnected, and Tiwari proposed marriage. He then allegedly established sexual relations with her under the false promise of marriage. He also allegedly took nude photos of her and used them to coerce her into further sexual relations. The complainant also gave him ₹8,50,000 and a laptop. She filed the FIR after learning that Tiwari had married someone else in 2017.

Defense Arguments:

Tiwari, through his advocate Manvendra N. Singh, argued that the complainant and Tiwari had a consensual love affair. He claimed that the complainant was trying to force him to marry her. He pointed out that the complainant had given him ₹8,50,000 for a joint business venture and that his wife had filed a complaint against the complainant. He also stated that the charge sheet had been filed and that he had no criminal antecedents.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, opposed the bail application. They argued that the offense was serious, that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was not recorded, and that Tiwari might pressurize the complainant and tamper with evidence.

Complainant’s Objections:

The complainant, through her advocate Simran Shaikh, argued that her statement under Section 164 was not recorded, that Tiwari’s family members were threatening her, and that certain items and money were yet to be recovered.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Kawdikar, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• Consensual Relationship: The court noted that the complainant and Tiwari had a sexual relationship over a period of 1 year and 3 months, with the complainant giving him ₹8,50,000 and a laptop. This prima facie indicated a consensual relationship.
• Complainant’s Maturity: The court considered the complainant’s age (25 at the time of the first incident) and her ability to understand the consequences of her actions.
• Delay in Filing FIR: The court noted that the FIR was filed only after the complainant learned of Tiwari’s marriage.
• Completed Investigation: The court observed that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet was filed.
• Recovery of Evidence: The court noted that the items claimed by the complainant were already seized by the police.
• Statement under Section 164: The court acknowledged that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 was not recorded, but noted that she had not appeared despite receiving a notice.
• Threats: The court considered the complainant’s claim of threats from Tiwari’s family and decided to impose conditions to protect her.
• No Criminal Antecedents: The court noted that Tiwari had no criminal antecedents.

Judge Kawdikar concluded that, considering the prima facie consensual relationship, the completed investigation, and the absence of criminal antecedents, Tiwari could be granted bail subject to conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Tiwari bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond (P.R.) of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must attend Ghatkopar Police Station on the first Sunday of every three months until the conclusion of the trial.
• He must not commit any offense in the future.
• He must not contact the complainant, witnesses, or their family members.
• He must not upload any videos or photographs of the complainant on social media.
• He must not leave India without court permission.
• He must furnish his permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the police station.
• He must not change his residential address without informing the investigating officer and the court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Prima Facie Consensual Relationship: The court considered the evidence suggesting a consensual relationship.
• Completed Investigation: The court considered the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.
• Balancing Rights and Interests: The court balanced the rights of the accused with the interests of justice by granting bail subject to conditions.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in considering bail applications in rape cases, particularly when there is evidence of a consensual relationship and the investigation is complete.