Last week, the Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping a woman at the behest of her husband.
While granting him bail, the Bench of Justice Prakash D Naik observed
It was not clear as to when did he establish physical relationship with her as the act was allegedly done on the prompting of the husband.
Case :
The FIR in the matter was lodged on February 23, 2019 and the applicant was arrested on June 18, 2019. The Court was hearing an application for bail for offences punishable under Sections 376(D), 377 & 120-B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 66 (E) of Information Technology Act, 2000 the
The complainant woman married one Vishal Hiremath – who is working in Merchant Navy – in 2009. Since 2015, the complainant and her husband were residing separately at Borivali.
As per allegations levelled by the woman, on one occasion her husband had returned from ship and another couple visited their house and all of them had consumed liquor.
She alleged that the friend of her husband (who has now applied for bail) sexually assaulted her and on the next day, the complainant’s husband informed her that he had recorded the video of the act and he had called that person for having sex with her.
The woman also alleged that similar incident had occurred thereafter. Her husband called another person at home and he was asked to establish physical relationship with complainant.
Her husband allegedly threatened her that objectionable video would be made viral is she refuses to act as per his wishes.
Witness Statement
The statement of one witness mentions that the accused No. 1 had made video call to him. His wife was also with him. Accused No. 1 told him that he can see the video of Accused No. 1 and his wife having sexual relationship. The witness refused to watch the video.
Accused No. 1 and his wife were smiling. Prima facie it appears that, Section 376 may not be attracted against applicant. The court observed that the trial is pending and giving such finding is not warranted. The applicant is in custody for a period of about one and half year.
Bombay High Court
The Court, in its order noted that the date of first and second incident had not been mentioned in the FIR. The alleged incidents occurred in 2015 and thereafter in 2016 & 2018, whereas the FIR was lodged on February 23, 2019.
The Court also observed that although the applicant had been identified, it was not clear as to in which incident he was involved and the complaint was lodged belatedly.
The court remarked,
Prima facie it appears that, Section 376 may not be attracted against applicant. Since the trial is pending, giving such finding is not warranted. The applicant is in custody for a period of about one and half year. Hence, case for grant of bail is made out.
Order
The applicant was directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 201 of 2018 registered with C.R. No.89 of 2019 registered with Kasturaba Marg Police Station, Mumbai on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs 25,000 with one or more sureties in the like amount.
CLICK ON THE LINK TO READ FULL ORDER
ALSO READ –
We are on Telegram. You can also join us on our Facebook Group
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
