Mumbai, Maharashtra – September 21, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has rejected the bail application of Kalim Siddhiqui @ Kalim Beharim Shaikh, a 29-year-old tailor from Nepal, accused of rape, kidnapping, and cybercrime. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Mrs. Madhuri M. Deshpande, cited the gravity of the allegations and the potential flight risk posed by the accused in its decision.
Siddhiqui, a resident of Kisunpur, Vishunpur-6, Simrongadh Municipal Corporation, Ward No.3, District Bara, Nepal, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 47 of 2022, registered with the DCB CID, Unit-V, Kurla, Mumbai. The case originated from C.R. No. 0295 of 2022, filed at Dharavi Police Station.
The complainant alleges a harrowing ordeal, stating that she became acquainted with Siddhiqui through phone and WhatsApp calls. According to her testimony, Siddhiqui recorded video calls and threatened to circulate them. He then allegedly kidnapped her, confining her in Bihar and Nepal, and repeatedly raped her against her will. Furthermore, he is accused of taking nude photographs and videos of her, which he later edited and uploaded onto his Instagram account, tagging her relatives. The complainant also alleges that Siddhiqui threatened to send these images to her husband.
These allegations led to the registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including 344 (wrongful confinement), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.), 376 (rape), 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of control or authority), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354(A)(B)(D) (sexual harassment), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 109 (abetment), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with 34 (common intention), and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (violation of privacy).
In his bail application, Siddhiqui, represented by Advocate Ganesh Gole (i/by Advocate Bhavin Jain), claimed that he was falsely implicated and that there was no prima facie case against him. He argued that the allegations stemmed from an extra-marital relationship with the complainant, and that she was attempting to harass his family. He also pointed to a month-long delay in filing the FIR and claimed that the investigating agency had failed to produce any concrete evidence against him.
However, Additional Public Prosecutor Bhandari, representing the State, vehemently opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that Siddhiqui, along with other accused, had conspired to kidnap, confine, and sexually assault the complainant, and had subsequently uploaded compromising material on social media. Crucially, the prosecution highlighted Siddhiqui’s residency in Nepal, arguing that his release would pose a significant flight risk and allow him to intimidate witnesses and the complainant.
Judge Deshpande, after reviewing the FIR and hearing arguments from both sides, rejected Siddhiqui’s bail application. The court found prima facie evidence of Siddhiqui’s involvement in the alleged offenses. The court also expressed concern about the potential for Siddhiqui to flee the country, given his Nepalese residency. The court also considered the potential risk to witnesses and the complainant. The Judge stated, “The prima facie involvement of the accused appears in the offence in question. Investigation is in progress. Charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Accused is resident of Nepal. The apprehension of the prosecution is well founded from the acts of the accused.”
The court emphasized the gravity of the offenses and the role played by the accused, stating that it was not a fit case for granting bail. The decision underscores the court’s concern for the safety of the complainant and witnesses, as well as the need to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial. The investigation into the case is ongoing.