Mumbai, May 7, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Vinayak Anant Bhoir, accused in a rape case. Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla, presiding over Court Room No. 29, allowed Bhoir’s bail application (Bail Application No. 1104 of 2024), citing the prima facie consensual nature of the relationship and the filing of the charge sheet.

Bhoir was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 46/2024, registered at Navghar Police Station, for offenses under sections 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the FIR, the complainant and Bhoir became acquainted on Facebook in 2013 and developed a romantic relationship. They agreed to marry after financial settlements were made. The complainant alleged that Bhoir maintained physical relations with her from 2014 to 2019 under the pretext of marriage. He also allegedly took her to a flat in Ambernath from 2019 to 2023 for physical relations. When she asked about marriage, he gave evasive answers. Despite her refusal, he allegedly forced her into physical relations until February 4, 2024. When she called him a month before filing the FIR, he refused to marry her and fled when she visited his office.

Defense Arguments:

Bhoir, through his advocate Ashok Mishra, argued that the physical relations were consensual. He contended that the marriage did not materialize due to the complainant’s family and that the FIR was filed to defame him. He highlighted that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet was filed, making his further custody unnecessary.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP R.V. Tiwari, opposed the bail application. They argued that Bhoir had committed a serious offense and had continued physical relations despite knowing marriage was unlikely. They expressed concerns about witness tampering and pressure on the complainant.

Complainant’s Objections:

The complainant appeared in person and opposed the bail application, reiterating the allegations in the FIR.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

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

• Consensual Relationship: The court noted that the complainant and Bhoir had agreed to marry and had physical relations from 2014 to 2019. This indicated that the initial relations were consensual and based on a promise of marriage.
• Family Meetings: The court observed that meetings had taken place between the families of the complainant and Bhoir, but the marriage did not materialize due to unspecified reasons.
• Subsequent Relations: The court stated that whether the physical relations after it became clear that marriage was unlikely constituted rape was a matter of trial.
• Completed Investigation: The court noted that the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet was filed.
• Trial Delay: The court acknowledged that the trial would take time and concluded that it was not proper to keep Bhoir in custody indefinitely.

Judge Shukla concluded that, considering the facts and circumstances, Bhoir could be granted bail subject to conditions to prevent threats or pressure on the complainant.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Bhoir bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond (P.R.) of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not contact, pressurize, or threaten the complainant or any prosecution witnesses.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• He must not commit any offense while on bail.
• Breach of any condition would be grounds for cancellation of bail.
• Bail must be furnished before the Jurisdictional Court.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Consensual Relationship: The court considered the initial consensual nature of the 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.