Bombay High Court Calls For Robust Mechanism To Impose Costs For Misuse Of Judicial Process In Rape Cases Stemming From Failed Relationships
Highlighting that rape cases stemming from failed relationships between adults waste the valuable time of both the police and the courts, the Bombay High Court recently called for a robust mechanism to impose heavy costs on individuals who misuse the judicial process.Justice Pitale highlighted the recurring nature of such cases in urban areas like Mumbai, which leads to wastage of valuable...
Highlighting that rape cases stemming from failed relationships between adults waste the valuable time of both the police and the courts, the Bombay High Court recently called for a robust mechanism to impose heavy costs on individuals who misuse the judicial process.
Justice Pitale highlighted the recurring nature of such cases in urban areas like Mumbai, which leads to wastage of valuable time which can be otherwise utilized in investigating serious offences.
“With passage of time, the alleged victim and the accused come together, having resolved their differences and then the victim gives consent for grant of bail and even for quashing of such proceedings...This Court is of the opinion that in such cases a robust mechanism ought to be developed for imposing heavy costs on such individuals who end up wasting the time of the Investigating Authority as well as the Court. In an appropriate case, this Court shall proceed to pass such an order”, the court stated.
The court granted bail to one Saket Abhiraj Jha, who was arrested for various alleged offences, including rape, extortion, and defamation under the IPC and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
The FIR was lodged based on a statement made by the complainant on November 1, 2023. She alleged that in October 2022, Jha forcibly made her drink alcohol and then engaged in non-consensual sexual activity, during which he took nude photographs and videos of her. The complainant further claimed that Jha repeated these acts on November 28, 2022, subsequently extorting approximately Rs. 75,000 from her and posting her mobile number on social media, leading to her receiving obscene messages from unknown individuals. The FIR alleges that the harassment persisted from October to November 2022.
Advocate Jyotiram S Yadav for Jha argued that Jha was in a consensual relationship with the complainant and that the FIR was the result of a misunderstanding. He also highlighted that Jha had been in custody since November 2, 2023, and that both parties had since resolved their differences. The charge-sheet was filed on November 28, 2023.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Tanveer Khan opposed the bail application, emphasizing the severity of the allegations, including the charge under Section 377 of the IPC. He argued that the nature of the offences and the resultant harassment via social media warranted denial of bail.
Advocate Mamta Hasrajani for the complainant submitted an affidavit dated June 14, 2024, stating that the complainant and Jha had resolved their differences and that she wished to withdraw her complaint. She expressed no objection to Jha being granted bail, subject to certain conditions.
The court noted the serious nature of the allegations, underscored by the swift investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. The court said that the material on record prima facie shows Jha's involvement in the serious offences. However, considering the victim's affidavit and the resolution of differences between the parties, the court decided to grant bail to Jha.
“Looking to the serious allegations made against the applicant, this Court was reluctant to consider the present application favourably, as the learned APP correctly points out that in the face of such serious allegations and sufficient material to connect the applicant with such allegations, bail ought not to be granted. But, considering the said affidavit of the respondent No.2 (complainant), which has been taken on record, this Court is inclined to allow the application, subject to appropriate conditions including the specific conditions insisted upon by the respondent No.2”, said the court.
The court directed Jha's released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000 and one or two sureties in the same amount.
The court prohibited Jha from contacting the victim directly or indirectly and from entering the jurisdiction of Kashimira Police Station except for mandatory reporting.
The court emphasized that any violation of bail conditions would result in the cancellation of bail.
Case no. – Bail Application No. 1893 of 2024
Case title – Saket Abhiraj Jha v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.