Mumbai, April 30, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge Sonali P. Agarwal granted bail to Sanjay Brindavan Mishra, accused in a rape and cheating case registered at Ghatkopar Police Station. The court cited the possibility of a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant as a reason for granting bail.

Mishra was arrested in connection with Crime No. 139/2022, registered under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape by a person in a position of control or authority over a woman), 420 (cheating), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the complainant, Mishra had been living with her like her husband for seven years, promising to marry her. She alleged that he avoided marriage, demanded money from her, and took Rs. 1,75,000, which she obtained through a bank loan and by pledging gold ornaments. She further alleged that Mishra left her three months prior, revealing that he was already married and had illicit relations with other women, including her daughter and daughter-in-law. She also alleged that he threatened her when she threatened to file a police complaint.

Mishra, through his advocate Santosh D. Mishra, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that the complainant was married and had deliberately concealed her marital status. He contended that the allegations were false and aimed at blackmailing him, particularly after his family members warned the complainant against interfering in his marital life. He also argued that there was no documentary evidence of the alleged financial transactions and that no complaints had been filed by the complainant’s daughter and daughter-in-law.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Meera Choudhary-Bhosale, opposed the bail, stating that Mishra had concealed his marital status from the complainant, financially cheated her, and potentially possessed objectionable photos and videos of her. They also expressed concerns that he might threaten witnesses and destroy evidence if released.

Judge Agarwal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the FIR, noted the following:

• The complainant was married and had children and a daughter-in-law.
• Mishra was also married and had children.
• The complainant alleged that Mishra had been living with her for 6-7 years.
• It was difficult to believe that the complainant was unaware of Mishra’s marital status.
• There was no documentary evidence of the alleged financial transactions.
• The relationship appeared to be consensual.

“In the FIR itself it is stated that informant is having a daughter and daughter-in-law. It shows that informant is married and having son, daughter and daughter-in-law. In the FIR it is stated that accused is already married. In the FIR it is alleged that informant came to know later that accused is married. Accused has contended that he is married and having children. Informant is alleging that since 6-7 years accused is staying with her in her room. Accused is 50 years old. Informant is also married and even having daughter-in-law. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that informant was not knowing that accused is already married and having children. Therefore, prima faciely it appears that informant and accused might be stayyed together though they are married to other persons. Informant is having a daughter-in-law also. Accused is also having wife. In such circumstances it is difficult to believe that accused gave false promise of marriage to have consensual relations. Informant has contended that she gave money to accused by taking loan and pledging her gold ornaments. It appears, there is no written documents about the same. It is possible that informant gave money to accused but there is nothing to show accused had an intention to cheat informant at this stage. From all such circumstances that informant is already married and accused is already married and since 7 years they were staying together, prima faciely it appears that parties were stayed together with free consent of each other.” Said Judge Agarwal.

The court also relied on judgments from the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court, which emphasized the importance of distinguishing between rape and consensual sex and considering the circumstances of the relationship.

“As discussed above, it appears prima faciely the relationship between the parties were consensual one. Considering such allegations and circumstances, it appears, no purpose is going to be served by keeping accused behind the bar. There are no criminal antecedents of accused brought on record. Hence, it will be proper to release accused on bail on some conditions.” Said Judge Agarwal.

Consequently, the court granted Mishra bail, ordering him to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 15,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The court also imposed the following conditions:

• Mishra must not threaten or cause injury to the complainant.
• Mishra must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• Mishra must cooperate with the police investigation.
• Mishra must attend the concerned police station every Thursday between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM until the final report is filed.
• Mishra must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
• Mishra must furnish his mobile number, phone number, and all addresses to the investigating officer and inform the investigating officer of any changes.

“Accused viz. Mr. Sanjay Brindavan Mishra be released on bail on his furnishing PB and SB of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with one or more surety/sureties in the like amount, in C.R.No.139/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 420 and 506(2) of IPC registered with Ghatkopar Police Station on the following conditions: (i) Accused is directed not to threaten or cause injury to informant. (ii) Accused is directed not to tamper with prosecution evidence. (iii) Accused shall co-operate with the investigation of Police. (iv) Accused is directed to attend concerned Police Station on every Thursday between 5.00 p.m. to 06.00 p.m. till filing of final report by police. (v) Accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer. (vi) Accused shall furnish his mobile number, phone number & his all addresses including permanent, temporary and postal to the Investigating Officer and in case of change or discontinue with the mobile numbers provided to Investigating Officer will inform new mobile number to Investigating Officer till the conclusion of the trial. Investigating Officer to submit such addresses and phone and mobile numbers to the Court.” Judge Agarwal ordered.

The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on April 30, 2022, and uploaded on May 9, 2022, as certified by stenographer Subhash Sukhdeo Poul.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach in considering the possibility of consensual relationships and the absence of criminal antecedents when deciding bail applications in rape and cheating cases, especially when the relationship appears to be long-term and both parties are married to others.