Mumbai Court Refuses Pre Arrest Bail To Anil Deshmukh's Lawyer And 3 Others In Sexual Harassment Case

Singh is accused of outraging modesty of a female member of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). He is a former North Mumbai District President of the party. The sections applied against the accused include sections 354 (assault to outrage modesty of woman), 509 (words to insult modesty) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.

Additional Sessions Judge NL Kale of the Dindoshi Sessions Court also rejected anticipatory bail applications of three other accused. Their names are Manishankar Chauhan, Mukesh Poojari and Dhananjay Chavan.

"Physical presence of the applicants with police is very necessary for seizure/recovery of mobile phones used by them in commission of the crime. In a result, the applicants are not entitled for grant of pre­arrest bail in their favour," the judge observed while rejecting the applications.

According to the FIR, after the complainant became the North Mumbai District President of the women's wing of the party in 2014, Singh asked her to "send beautiful women to his office", which was opposed by her, resulting in Singh holding a grudge against her. He also, allegedly lodged a false NDPS complaint against the complainant's husband in 2017.

Later, Singh was made "karyadhyaksha" of the party in 2019. It is also alleged that Singh was "always causing disturbance to the social work of informant and was always used to defame the informant."

On October 7, 2021, Singh is alleged to have sent a lewd and abusive WhatsApp message regarding the complainant on a WhatsApp group. In a party meeting three days later, when about 20-22 party members were present Singh allegedly made wrong statements against the complainant, Poojari put his hand on her chest and Singh pushed to her. A few members present at the meeting intervened.

She then sent a complaint to the State Women's Commission, which was sent to the concerned police station, after which the FIR was registered.

Arguing for the anticipatory bail before the court, the lawyers argued that the case against them was based on false and frivolous allegations and was filed only due to political rivalry only.

It was also argued that the accused had complained to the Senior Inspector of Charkop Police Station on November 30, 2021 regarding fabrication of electronic record by the complainant and others to implicate them in false crime. They further argued that the phone number on which disputed WhatsApp message was sent was actually not used by the complainant but was her husband's number.

Singh's lawyers also claimed that the case was filed against him since he was representing people like Anil Deshmukh in high profile cases.

The prosecution opposed the plea stating that the offences were serious in nature and investigation was underway. The complainant's lawyer also opposed the application claiming that the complainant was harassed previously for not fulfilling demands.

The court observed that even if the actual chat data of the disputed messaged can be obtained from the concerned authorities, the custody would be required to seize mobile phones used by the accused and rejected their applications.