A man in Mumbai has been granted pre-arrest bail in the rape case filed by his live-in partner.
The Mumbai court's decision came after examining a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) presented by the accused, which claimed that the two had entered into a contractual live-in relationship for 11 months from August 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025.
However, the woman denied having signed the document.
The prosecution alleged that the 30-year-old woman met the accused on October 6, 2023. The woman was a divorcee and the man proposed marriage to her.
After their relationship began, the woman discovered the accused was involved with another woman. The woman also alleged that the accused blackmailed her with obscene videos and insisted on continuing their relationship. She claimed that she became pregnant but the accused forced her to take abortion pills. Subsequently, she found out he was already married.
The complaint was filed on August 23, 2024, accusing the man of repeatedly raping her under the false promise of marriage.
Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Ramesh Siroya argued that the accused’s mobile phone needed to be seized and that he could potentially tamper with evidence. The complainant also appeared before the court, stating that the accused had threatened to take away her son and continued to harass her despite her changing locations.
Meanwhile, advocate Sunil Pandey, representing the accused, said that the man and the woman had been in a live-in relationship for the past 11 months. He argued that the relationship between them was consensual, as evidenced by the MOU, and that the rape charges were baseless.
Judge Shayana Patil, after reviewing all evidence and statements, noted that the relationship appeared to be consensual initially and that both parties were adults. The judge pointed out the delay in filing the FIR, considering the relationship allegedly started in October 2023 without any immediate complaint.
Regarding the MOU, Judge Patil observed that the document presented was merely a xerox copy with a notary stamp, with no concrete evidence to ascertain its authenticity. The judge concluded that it seemed to be a case of a consensual relationship that eventually soured, leading to the complaint.
Given the nature of the accusations and the evidence presented, Judge Patil decided that custodial interrogation was not necessary.
"The allegations about any obscene videos of the complainant are not specific. Moreover, the accused can be asked to cooperate with the investigation on this aspect," said Judge Patil.
The court then granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, protecting him from arrest while the investigation continues.
