Consensual Relationship Not License To Exploit Partner Sexually, Physically Or Financially: Bombay High Court
Even if there is a consensual relationship between a man and a woman, it does not give one a licence to exploit the partner, the Bombay High Court said on Wednesday while denying bail to a man booked for outraging modesty, abduction, extortion, rape and unnatural sex. Single-judge Justice NJ Jamadar noted from the statements of various witnesses that indicated how the applicant, who had...
Even if there is a consensual relationship between a man and a woman, it does not give one a licence to exploit the partner, the Bombay High Court said on Wednesday while denying bail to a man booked for outraging modesty, abduction, extortion, rape and unnatural sex.
Single-judge Justice NJ Jamadar noted from the statements of various witnesses that indicated how the applicant, who had an extra-marital affair with the victim, ill-treated the victim.
"The fact that the applicant has given threat to the informant while in custody and even made an attempt to escape from the custody cannot be lost sight of. Cumulatively it appears that the applicant had sexually, physically and financially exploited the first informant. Consensual relationship, even if the submission on behalf of the applicant is taken at par, does not give a license to exploit the partner, much less in the manner in which the material on record, in the instant case, indicates," Justice Jamadar said in the order.
The judge made the observations while denying bail to one Pritam Oswal, a resident of Hadapsar, Pune.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant met the victim woman on social media site Facebook. He offered to help her with her litigation work she initiated against some persons. He initially treated her like a brother but on July 10, 2020, he took her in a car on the pretext of meeting an advocate. He took the car at a secluded place and then forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim at gun point. He even shot the video of the act exploited her sexually on several occasions.
It was further alleged that when she conceived, the applicant forced her to abort the foetus. He even assaulted her with kicks and blows on her stomach to get rid of the pregnancy, it was said. Eventually in September 2022, she suffered a miscarriage. Subsequently, in May 2023, when the victim visited the applicant's house asking him to return the gold and money she gave to him, he along with his father allegedly sexually assaulted her, it is said.
In his defence, the applicant contended that it was a consensual relationship between the parties and that the only time when he physically abused her was when the victim woman insisted to abort her pregnancy as the applicant wanted her to deliver their child. Further, it was contended that there was an unexplained delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) against the applicant.
Having heard the contentions, the judge said that at the first blush the arguments by the applicant appear to be alluring as to why the victim did not report or resist the sexual relationship prior to the date of FIR in August 2023.
The judge considered the statements of various witnesses right from the tenant of the applicant to his employee and also some independent witnesses, who testified how the applicant even tried to strangulate the victim as she wasn't willing to abort the pregnancy.
"The statements of the witnesses are required to be read in conjunction with transcript of the Whats App conversation between applicant the first informant which prima facie substantiate, by and large, the allegations of the first informant with regard to sexual exploitation and giving threats, including a threat that the applicant would not spare the first informant even if he is sentenced for her murder," the judge observed.
With these observations, the judge rejected the bail plea.
Case Details: Pritam Chandulal Oswal vs State of Maharashtra.