Mumbai, February 8, 2024 – Mahesh Ashok Rafukya, a 27-year-old, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Mumbai in connection with an alleged rape case. Rafukya was arrested in connection with Crime No. 49/2024, registered at Vakola Police Station, for offenses under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(N) (repeated rape), and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations

According to the First Information Report (FIR), the complainant, a 27-year-old married woman with two children, became acquainted with Rafukya on social media two years prior. Their friendship reportedly turned into a love affair, and Rafukya allegedly promised to marry her. On the pretext of this promise, he allegedly repeatedly raped her. After the complainant obtained a divorce by consent from her husband, she attempted to contact Rafukya, but he allegedly avoided her. She then realized that his promise was false and filed a police report.

Rafukya’s Defense and Arguments

Advocate Abhishek Mishra, representing Rafukya, argued that the complainant, a 27-year-old woman, had a consensual relationship with his client. He contended that the offense under Section 376 of the IPC was not applicable. He further stated that the complainant had filed the FIR due to a misunderstanding and that they now intended to marry. He also presented a statement from the complainant stating she had no objection to bail being granted.

Prosecution’s Objections

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rashmi Tendulkar opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was ongoing and the charge sheet had not yet been filed. She expressed concerns that Rafukya might tamper with evidence if released.

Complainant’s Position

Advocate Devendra Singh, representing the complainant, confirmed that she had no objection to Rafukya being granted bail, as they intended to marry after his release.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge Shri N.G. Shukla considered the submissions from both sides, the FIR, the prosecution’s reply, and the affidavit filed by the complainant. Upon personally verifying the complainant’s statement, she admitted that the FIR was filed due to a misunderstanding, as she couldn’t reach Rafukya, and that she intended to marry him.

“On personal verification of complainant, she admitted that FIR is filed due to misunderstanding as where ever she tried to contact the applicant/accused, he was not found and she is going to perform marriage with him,” Judge Shukla stated in the order.

The court observed that the complainant was married and maintained a relationship with Rafukya before her divorce, suggesting she was aware she couldn’t marry him until she was divorced. Given the circumstances, the court found the relationship appeared consensual and the applicability of Section 376 doubtful. The court also noted the complainant’s no-objection to bail and her intention to marry Rafukya.

“In view of this circumstance, it appears consensual relationship and applicability of Sec.376 is doubtful. Complainant has given no objection to grant bail as she and applicant would perform marriage,” Judge Shukla stated.

Bail Conditions

Rafukya was granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 and one surety of the same amount. The court imposed the following conditions:

• Rafukya must not tamper with the prosecution’s evidence.
• He must attend the concerned police station when called and cooperate with the investigation.
• He is permitted to furnish a provisional cash security of Rs. 15,000 in lieu of the surety for eight weeks.
• The bail process will be completed before the concerned court.

Key Points

• Consensual Relationship: The court considered the nature of the relationship and the complainant’s awareness of her marital status.
• Complainant’s Consent: The complainant’s no-objection to bail and her intention to marry Rafukya played a significant role in the court’s decision.
• Doubtful Applicability of Section 376: The court expressed doubt about the applicability of the rape charge, given the circumstances.
• Marriage Agreement: The agreement to marry was a key factor in the granting of bail.