Mumbai, February 23, 2024 – Lakhan @ Lucky Babu Jadhav has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a rape case, following the complainant’s submission of an affidavit stating she had no objection to his release. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar in Court Room No. 41, pertains to Criminal Bail Application No. 378 of 2024.

Jadhav was arrested in connection with Crime No. 50/2024, registered at Kurla Police Station, for offenses under Sections 376 (rape), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace),¹ 506 (criminal intimidation), and 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) of the² Indian Penal Code.

The complainant and Jadhav had known each other since 2018, and their friendship had evolved into a romantic relationship. However, in 2019, the complainant discovered that Jadhav was married with children. The FIR details incidents of verbal abuse, physical assault, and forced oral sex, culminating in the complaint being filed on February 6, 2024.

In his bail application, Jadhav, represented by Advocate Sudhir Khatu, claimed that the FIR was false and concocted, and that the relationship was consensual. He argued that no recovery was pending, he was a permanent resident of Mumbai, and he was willing to abide by all court conditions.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offense, the preliminary stage of the investigation, the pending registration of the complainant’s 164 statement, and prior offenses against Jadhav. They also raised concerns about witness tampering, as a non-cognizable offense had been registered against Jadhav’s friends for allegedly threatening the complainant.

Crucially, the complainant filed an affidavit (Exhibit 4) stating she had no objection to Jadhav’s bail.

Judge Kawdikar, after reviewing the record, noted that the complainant and Jadhav had a longstanding relationship, and despite knowing about his marriage, she continued to be in contact with him. The court also acknowledged the complainant’s affidavit stating she had no objection to the bail.

“Taking into consideration ‘no objection’ of the complainant at Exh. 4; it is held that continued incarceration of the accused is not required,” Judge Kawdikar stated in her order.

Despite the complainant’s “no objection,” the court acknowledged the pending offenses against Jadhav and the non-cognizable offense registered against his friends. To ensure the complainant’s safety and the integrity of the investigation and trial, the court imposed several conditions on Jadhav’s bail:

• He must execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He is prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses and evidence.
• He must attend Kurla Police Station every Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and as and when called by the Investigating Officer until the charge sheet is filed.
• He is prohibited from committing any offense in the future.
• He is prohibited from contacting the complainant, witnesses, or their family members.
• He is prohibited from leaving India without court permission.
• He must provide his permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the police station.
• He must not change his residential address without informing the Investigation Officer and the court.
• Bail is to be executed before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
• Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the complainant’s wishes, while also balancing the need to ensure her safety and the integrity of the legal process. The imposition of strict conditions underscores the court’s commitment to preventing witness intimidation and ensuring Jadhav’s cooperation with the ongoing investigation and trial.