Mumbai, September 5, 2022 – Rohit Kamlashankar Sharma, accused of rape and other offenses, has been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge Smt. A.B. Sharma. The court cited the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) and the near completion of the investigation as primary reasons for granting bail.

Sharma was arrested in connection with Crime No. 537 of 2022 registered at Wadala T.T. Police Station. He was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code¹ (IPC), as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form).

Allegations and Prosecution’s Case:

The complainant alleged that Sharma, the son of her landlord, had been harassing her since 2019. She claimed he repeatedly visited her residence, made advances, and threatened her. Eventually, he allegedly raped her and captured photos and videos of the act. He then used these materials to blackmail her into repeated sexual intercourse. The complainant eventually disclosed these incidents to her sister in Gujarat, who then informed her husband and the complainant’s husband, leading to the filing of the FIR.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Manoj Tiwari, representing Sharma, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He highlighted that the allegations were baseless, Sharma had no prior criminal record, and the investigation was almost complete. He also emphasized that Sharma was the sole breadwinner of his family and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Stance:

Ld. APP. Kalpana Hire, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offense and the prima facie case against Sharma. She argued that the investigation was ongoing and that releasing Sharma could lead to tampering with evidence and witness intimidation.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Sharma, after reviewing the FIR and the case diary, noted the significant delay in filing the FIR. She also acknowledged that the material investigation was nearly complete, with no further recoveries needed from Sharma.

“The contents of FIR goes to show that at the very first incident, no FIR was lodged by the victim against the accused. There is an inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The material investigation in respect of the accused is almost completed. Nothing has to be recovered from the accused,” Judge Sharma stated in her order.

The court also considered that Sharma was the sole earning member of his family and that his continued detention seemed unnecessary. To address the prosecution’s concerns about witness tampering, the court imposed several conditions.

Conditions of Bail:

Sharma was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more solvent sureties of the like amount.
• He must visit Wadala T.T. Police Station once a month (every third Saturday) between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. until the conclusion of the trial.
• He must not leave India without prior permission from the court.
• He must submit proof of his residential address, phone number, Aadhaar Card, and Election Card (if any).
• He must not involve himself in any crime, failing which his bail may be cancelled.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence or witnesses.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the case.
• He must attend all court hearings.
• He must not contact, visit, or enter the area where the victim resides.
• Violation of any condition may lead to the cancellation of his bail.
• Provisional cash bail is allowed for three months.

Implications:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the delay in filing the FIR and the progress of the investigation as crucial factors in granting bail. By imposing strict conditions, the court aimed to balance the accused’s right to liberty with the need to ensure the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of the victim and witnesses. This case also illustrates the court’s discretion in evaluating the specific circumstances of each case when considering bail applications.