Mumbai Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Rape Amid Evidence of Consensual Relationship

Mumbai, 5th September 2024: A Mumbai sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of rape after he presented evidence of a consensual relationship with the complainant. The case, filed at the Colaba police station, involved sexual assault allegations, but the court’s decision was influenced by a notarized agreement outlining a live-in arrangement between the two.

During the hearing, the accused submitted a notarized agreement asserting that their relationship was consensual and that both parties had agreed to cohabit from August 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. The document included seven clauses, one of which specified that the complainant would not accuse the accused of sexual misconduct.

The complainant contested the agreement’s validity, claiming she had not signed it. Despite this, the court considered the document as part of the evidence.

In its ruling, the court noted that the FIR did not indicate any force or coercion at the start of the relationship. The court remarked, “Beyond the document provided by the applicant, the relationship appears to be consensual, and there is no evidence of force in the FIR concerning the early stages of the relationship.”

The court also considered the delay in filing the FIR—despite the alleged start of the relationship in October 2023, the complaint was made much later.

The ruling stated, “Given the nature of the allegations, the applicant is not required for custodial interrogation. The accusations regarding obscene videos are not specific, and the accused can cooperate with the investigation. Thus, anticipatory bail is granted.”

The bail was set at ₹25,000, with a solvent surety of the same amount.

The accused’s lawyer praised the court’s decision, arguing that the case reflects a pattern of behaviour by the complainant. The lawyer contended that the complainant had previously been involved in consensual relationships and later accused her partners of rape.

“She contested the validity of the live-in agreement, but we have proven in court that it is indeed her signature. She also alleged harassment, but given the geographical distance between her residence and my client’s, the court found it implausible. Hence, anticipatory bail was granted,” the lawyer stated.