Mumbai, July 29, 2022 – Munaf Abdul Rehman Lambe’s bail application has been rejected by the Sessions Court in Mumbai. Lambe was arrested in connection with Crime No. 57/2022, registered at Nagpada Police Station, for offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 420 (cheating) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).¹

The Allegations

According to the complainant, Naziya Parvez Shaikh, she met Lambe on Facebook in 2016. Lambe allegedly promised to marry her and then proceeded to demand money, claiming his business partner had cheated him. He also allegedly established a physical relationship with her under the false promise of marriage. Later, she discovered that he was already married and that he and his brother, Adnan, had cheated her by taking a large sum of money.

Lambe’s Defense and Arguments

Ms. P.C. Contractor, representing Lambe, argued that the allegations were an afterthought and that there was an inordinate delay in filing the FIR. She stated that the investigating officer had completed the necessary investigation and that further detention was unwarranted. She also argued that Lambe had no role in the offense allegedly committed by his co-accused brother, Adnan. Lambe expressed his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and assured that he would not tamper with witnesses or misuse the liberty of bail. He also stated that he was a permanent resident of Mumbai and would cooperate with the investigation.

Prosecution’s Objections

APP Bhandari opposed the bail application, arguing that Lambe had suppressed the fact of his prior marriage and had committed repeated sexual intercourse with the complainant under a false promise of marriage. He also alleged that Lambe and his brother had taken Rs. 6 lakh from the complainant. The prosecution cited Lambe’s prior criminal record, including offenses under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and² 420 of the IPC. They also stated that Lambe had been absconding and that the investigation was ongoing. They expressed concerns that if released, Lambe would pressurize the complainant and flee from justice.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Additional Sessions Judge M.M. Deshpande considered the submissions and the documents on record. The court noted that Lambe had previously applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected, and that during this period, he did not cooperate with the investigating agency. The court also noted that the complainant had issued a notice to Lambe for the recovery of Rs. 6,24,000, which he had received from her under the false promise of marriage.

“The accused under the false premise of marriage has gained her faith and took huge amount from her. The investigation is in progress. The charge-sheet is yet to be filed. The accused in collusion with accused no. 2 has committed the offence prima facie involvement of the accused appears in the offence in question. The prosecution requires further detention of accused for further investigation and apprehension of the prosecution is well founded from the act of the accused,” Judge Deshpande stated in the order.

The court rejected the arguments made by the defense, including the citation of various case law. The court found the fact patterns of the cited case law to be different than the present case.

The court concluded that considering the nature of the offense, Lambe’s role, his previous conduct, and the ongoing investigation, it was not proper to release him on bail.

Order

Bail Application No. 1733/2022 was rejected.

Key Points

• Prior Criminal Record: Lambe had a prior criminal record, including offenses related to molestation and cheating.
• Non-Cooperation with Investigation: Lambe had not cooperated with the investigation and had previously applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected.
• Financial Fraud: The complainant had given Lambe a significant amount of money under the false promise of marriage.
• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was ongoing, and the charge sheet had not been filed.
• Flight Risk: The prosecution expressed concerns that Lambe would flee from justice.
• Witness Tampering: The prosecution expressed concerns that Lambe would pressurize the complainant.
• False Promise of Marriage: The court noted that Lambe had gained the complainant’s faith under the false promise of marriage.
• Co-Accused Absconding: Lambe’s co-accused brother was yet to be arrested.