Bombay HC grants pre-arrest bail to cop accused of rape by colleague – India Today

The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an Assistant Police Inspector (API) of Mumbai Police booked in a case of rape on the pretext of false promise of a female colleague belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.

The accused officer was booked for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act). The complainant woman is a sub-inspector who was earlier posted with Mumbai Police.

A special judge under the SC/ST Act had earlier rejected the cop’s application for anticipatory bail after which he approached the high court.

What is the case about?

The accused cop met the complainant in 2013. From 2014, the complainant claimed that the cop forcibly had physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage and continued abusing her despite her resistance.

When the complainant demanded that the cop marry her, he sought time on the pretext that his mother had cancer. He also allegedly recorded objectionable videos of the complainant and threatened to upload them online.

After officers and colleagues came to know about the relationship, the complainant sought transfer to Pune.

In April 2021, the accused cop got married to some other woman. When the complainant got to know about this, she went to meet him at his house in rural Maharashtra. But the accused persuaded her not to go to his house and continued physical relations with her.

When the complainant threatened to inform his family about the same, the accused abused her with reference to her tribe and assaulted her. However, the complainant informed his family who allegedly abused and assaulted her. It was after this that she filed the FIR.

In his plea for anticipatory bail, the accused claimed that their relationship was consensual and that the two had broken up amicably in 2018. However, the complainant used to call him occasionally.

The complainant also sent a note with the threat of suicide in 2020, the accused said, adding that she wanted to take revenge after he got married.

Why did Bombay High Court say?

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for the cop, submitted that the offences under SC/ST Act had to be ruled out as those were not committed within public view.

He argued that the allegations in the FIR were required to be viewed at the backdrop of the long standing consensual relationship between the parties.

As for the offence of rape, Ponda submitted that the complainant’s version ran counter to the long standing relationship.

“Mere failure to perform the promise to marry, the prosecutrix, without anything more, would not fall within the dragnet of offence of rape,” Ponda argued.

Additional Public Prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde opposed the appeal, stating that the accused had repeatedly exploited the complainant by giving false promise of marriage.

Based on the allegations in the FIR, the bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar said that while the accused knew about the caste of the complainant since 2014, the alleged instance of abuse based on tribe occurred only in 2021 in a room.

The second alleged incident, in which the complainant alleged she was assaulted by the accused’s family members, also took place in the house where the accused was not present, the court noted.

Conversely, the allegation of the accused’s refusal to solemnise marriage due to the complainant’s case is conspicuous by its absence at least till the alleged incidents.

As for the question of consensual relationship, the bench opined that the question of fact was for trial. However, the claim that the relationship was consensual cannot be set aside and hence case for pre-arrest bail is made out.

“The appellant being a police officer, like prosecutrix, the possibility of fleeing away from justice appears remote,” the court said.