Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Applicant in a Case Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Information Technology Act, 2000 – Observes Prima Facie Consensual Relationship and Absence of Clear Medical Evidence.

The Court held that the liberty of an individual is a precious right and should not be curtailed in the absence of compelling evidence. It imposed stringent conditions to balance the rights of both parties during the trial.

The Court allowed the bail application, observing that: The relationship appeared consensual given the timeline and conduct of both parties. The allegations of forceful sexual assault were not prima facie supported by medical evidence. The cybercrime allegations lacked sufficient material for a conclusive prima facie opinion. The Applicant had no prior criminal antecedents and deep societal roots, reducing flight risk.

Prima Facie Observations on Consensual Relationship: (Paras 7.1 to 7.3) Absence of Medical Evidence: (Para 7.3) Cybercrime Allegations and Lack of Substantiation: (Para 7.4) Conditions for Bail: (Para 8)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 420

• Information Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 66C, 66D

Subjects:

Bail Application – Consensual Relationship – Forceful Sexual Assault – Cybercrime Allegations – Prima Facie Observations – No Criminal Antecedents – Judicial Discretion – Conditions for Bail

Nature of Litigation: Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 533/2024 registered with Shree Nagar Police Station, Thane.

Applicant’s Prayer: The Applicant sought regular bail, contending that the allegations of forceful sexual assault and cybercrime were baseless and that the relationship with the prosecutrix was consensual.

Reason for Filing the Case: The prosecutrix alleged forceful sexual assault and cyber exploitation by the Applicant, leading to the registration of the FIR under relevant sections of IPC and IT Act.

Previous Decisions: No prior decisions on this specific application; however, reliance was placed on several High Court and Supreme Court judgments dealing with similar facts.

Issues:

• Whether the allegations of forceful sexual assault were substantiated by evidence.

• Whether the alleged cybercrime was supported by credible material.

• Whether the Applicant’s continued custody was necessary post-completion of the investigation.

Submissions/Arguments:

(a) Applicant’s Counsel:

• Argued the consensual nature of the relationship.

• Highlighted contradictions in the prosecutrix’s timeline of events.

• Emphasized the absence of clear medical evidence and delay in examination.

• Cited similar judicial precedents where bail was granted in comparable situations.

(b) State’s Counsel:

• Stressed the seriousness of the allegations.

• Argued potential threat posed by the Applicant to society.

• Expressed concerns over possible reoffending.

(c) Prosecutrix’s Counsel:

• Alleged financial exploitation and emotional manipulation.

• Opposed bail on grounds of safety for the prosecutrix and her minor child.

Precedents:

• Mahesh Brijmohan Jaiswar v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 4483 of 2024)

• Veerendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Misc. Criminal Case No. 48783 of 2024)

• Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT Delhi) (2013) 9 SCC 293

• Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 15 SCC 385