Mumbai, March 16, 2024 – Vilas Devendra Nayak @ Amir Nayak has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a rape case. Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla (Court Room No. 29) issued the order on March 15, 2024.

Nayak was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 81/2024, registered at the Vakola Police Station, for offenses under Sections 376 (rape), 328 (causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offense), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background and Allegations:

The complainant alleged that Nayak, who runs a housekeeping business providing maid jobs, administered an unwholesome drug to her on the night of January 16, 2024, and then raped her in his room. Both the complainant and Nayak are from the same village in Orissa.

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Akbar Ali Khan, representing Nayak, argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR, which was lodged on the morning of January 19, 2024. He pointed out that Nayak had helped the complainant board a train on the afternoon of January 18, 2024, and she did not file a report until the next morning. He also claimed that the complainant had not cooperated with the medical examination and had fled from the hospital. He suggested that the complainant had filed a false report to damage Nayak’s reputation in their village and extort money from him.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) R.V. Tiwari opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was ongoing and the charge sheet had not been filed. He asserted that the complainant’s statement was sufficient without a medical report, and that the delay was explained in the FIR. He argued that Nayak had administered the drug to the complainant and then tried to send her back to her village to avoid prosecution. He expressed concerns that if released, Nayak might flee and intimidate the complainant.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Shukla considered the submissions and the FIR. He noted that the complainant had explained the delay in filing the FIR, stating that she was under the influence of the drug and that Nayak had tried to send her back to her village.

The court also considered the police’s statement that the complainant had undergone a physical medical examination but had not cooperated with the psychiatric examination and had left the hospital.

The court found that there was prima facie evidence to show Nayak’s involvement in the serious offense. Considering that the investigation was ongoing, the charge sheet had not been filed, and the complainant and Nayak were from the same village, the court concluded that there was a risk of Nayak intimidating the complainant if released on bail.

Decision:

The court rejected Nayak’s bail application, finding that it was not a fit case for granting bail.

Order Details:

The order was dictated and pronounced on March 15, 2024, and the certified copy was uploaded on March 16, 2024, at 3:24 p.m.

This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the specific allegations, the explanation for the delay in filing the FIR, the progress of the investigation, and the potential risks to the complainant.