Mumbai, March 2, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Shriram Padmanabha Poonja, accused in a rape case. Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla, presiding over Court Room No. 29, denied the bail application (Bail Application No. 408 of 2024), citing the accused’s conduct, the false promise of marriage, and the exploitation of the complainant.

Poonja was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 223/2024, registered at Bandra Police Station, for offenses under sections 376(2)(n) (rape), 377 (unnatural offenses), 417 (cheating), 500 (defamation), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the FIR, Poonja came into contact with the complainant in August 2020 and developed a relationship with her. He allegedly maintained sexual relations with her from August 2021 to December 2023 under the pretext of a false promise of marriage. In December 2023, the complainant discovered nude photos and videos of Poonja with other women, leading to a dispute. On January 11, 2024, when the complainant refused Poonja’s request for sexual relations and asked about the photos, he refused to marry her. Subsequently, he demanded the return of a diamond ring he had given her.

Defense Arguments:

Poonja, through his advocate Kushal Mor, argued that the complainant was a 37-year-old married woman and that the physical relations were consensual. He pointed out that a marriage date was fixed but not performed due to the complainant’s pending divorce. He claimed that frequent fights led to the complainant leaving his company. He argued that the complainant stayed at his house like his wife, indicating consensual relations. He also stated that his statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded, and the investigation was nearly complete.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP R.V. Tiwari, and the complainant, through her advocate Shreya Shrivastava, opposed the bail application. They argued that the sexual relations were based on Poonja’s false promise of marriage. They highlighted that when the complainant confronted Poonja about the nude photos, he refused to marry her, indicating a lack of intention to marry. They also presented a complaint from another woman, XYZ, who alleged that Poonja had sexually exploited her from 2018 to 2021 under a false promise of marriage. They argued that Poonja had a pattern of exploiting women. They expressed concerns about witness tampering and influence if Poonja was released on bail.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Shukla, after reviewing the record and hearing arguments, made the following observations:

• False Promise of Marriage: The court noted that Poonja had promised marriage, and the complainant had sexual relations based on that promise.
• Discovery of Nude Photos: The court highlighted the complainant’s discovery of nude photos and videos of Poonja with other women, which led to the dispute and Poonja’s refusal to marry.
• Complaint from XYZ: The court considered the complaint from XYZ, which corroborated the complainant’s allegations and revealed Poonja’s pattern of exploiting women under false promises of marriage.
• Conduct of Accused: The court concluded that Poonja’s conduct indicated an intention from the beginning not to marry but only to sexually exploit the complainant.
• Investigation Pending: The court noted that the statements of XYZ and other witnesses were yet to be recorded, and investigations regarding the photos and videos were ongoing.
• Risk of Tampering: The court expressed concerns about Poonja tampering with evidence if released on bail.

Judge Shukla concluded that, considering Poonja’s conduct, the false promise of marriage, and the ongoing investigation, he was not inclined to grant bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• False Promise of Marriage: The court considered the false promise of marriage as a crucial factor in denying bail.
• Pattern of Exploitation: The court considered the evidence suggesting a pattern of exploitation by the accused.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court considered the ongoing investigation and the need to record further statements.
• Risk of Tampering: The court considered the risk of the accused tampering with evidence.

This ruling underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in rape cases, particularly when there is evidence of a false promise of marriage and a pattern of exploitation.