Mumbai, March 21, 2024: Sudhir Anjani Tiwari, accused of rape, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, comes in response to Criminal Bail Application No. 301 of 2024, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that the offence was serious, and while the charge sheet was filed, the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was not recorded. They expressed concerns that granting bail would lead to witness intimidation, evidence tampering, and flight risk.

The complainant, through her advocate Simran Shaikh, further contended that her family was being threatened by Tiwari’s family members (NC No. 0130/2024), and that key items like a Dell laptop, gold ring, and neck chain were yet to be recovered. She also claimed that ₹10,60,000, given to Tiwari, was not returned.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:

Advocate Manvendra N. Singh, representing Tiwari, argued that the complainant and his client had known each other since college. They had a love affair, and the complaint was filed as a means to coerce Tiwari into marriage. He pointed out that Tiwari’s mobile phone, containing evidence, was seized, and that the FIR was filed on January 12, 2024, as revenge after Tiwari’s marriage on December 4, 2023. He also stated that the money given by the complainant was for a business venture where she was a sleeping partner.

Judge Kawdikar, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, highlighted several crucial points:

• Consensual Relationship: The complainant, a 27-year-old divorcee, had a prolonged sexual relationship with Tiwari at her own residence, suggesting consent.
• Delayed FIR: The FIR was filed over a year after the alleged first incident and only after the complainant learned of Tiwari’s marriage, raising questions about the timing and motive.
• Financial Transactions: The complainant voluntarily gave Tiwari ₹8,50,000 and a laptop, indicating a close relationship.
• No Immediate Complaint: Despite knowing about alleged obscene photos taken by Tiwari, the complainant did not file any complaint or non-cognizable (NC) complaint for over a year.
• Completed Investigation: The charge sheet was filed, and the key evidence (mobile phone with photos) was seized, negating the need for further custodial interrogation.
• Statement under 164: The complainant did not appear to record her 164 statement despite notice from police.

The court cited the principle of “Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani Vs. State of Maharashtra,” stating that sexual involvement does not necessarily imply a commitment to marriage. Judge Kawdikar concluded that the sexual relationship appeared prima facie consensual.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Tiwari with the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• He must attend Ghatkopar Police Station on the first Sunday of every three months between 10:00 AM and 10:30 AM until the trial concludes.
• He must not commit any offence 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 cannot leave India without court permission.
• He must provide his permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the police station.
• He must inform the police and court of any change in his residential address.
• Violation of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.

Implications and Future Proceedings:

The granting of bail to Tiwari underscores the court’s consideration of the consensual nature of the relationship, the delayed filing of the FIR, and the completion of the investigation. The case highlights the complexities of consent in relationships and the challenges of proving allegations of rape. While Tiwari has been granted bail, the trial will proceed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to present its evidence.