The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 22-year-old student who was accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). While taking into account the statement of the Complainant and their WhatsApp conversations, the Court observed an initial impression that the sexual intercourse might have been consensual.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case involves a bail application filed by Avinash Subhash Kamble, a 22-year-old student, who was accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was registered with the Powai Police Station in Mumbai, involving an incident that allegedly occurred on April 6, 2022. The complainant had been in a relationship with a friend of Avinash but had broken up with him. Following the breakup, the complainant began communicating with Avinash.
According to the complainant, Avinash attempted to reconcile her relationship with her ex-boyfriend. On the mentioned date, Avinash allegedly asked the complainant to meet him at Greenwood Lodge in Powai, where she claimed he committed an act that constituted an offence under Section 376 of the IPC, which pertains to rape.
Contentions of the Parties:
Avinash's learned counsel argued that there was a delay between the alleged incident on April 6, 2022, and the lodging of the FIR on April 8, 2022. However, they contended that the mere delay in filing the FIR should not automatically entitle the applicant to be denied bail. Avinash's counsel pointed out that the complainant's statement, as well as the WhatsApp chats between Avinash and the complainant, suggested the possibility of a consensual physical relationship. They argued that these factors raised a prima facie opinion that the act in question might have been consensual.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. They contended that the accusations against Avinash were serious in nature and that he had taken advantage of the complainant's vulnerable situation following the breakup. The prosecution argued that the evidence suggested that Avinash had committed a grave offence and should not be granted bail. They pointed out that the complainant had confided in her friend, who advised her to file the FIR, indicating the severity of the alleged act.
Observations of the Court:
While granting bail, Justice M. S. Karnik observed that based on the complainant's statement and their WhatsApp conversations, there was a prima facie opinion that the physical relationship between the two could have been consensual. The judge also highlighted that the complainant's friend, to whom she confided, had advised her to file the FIR. Furthermore, the WhatsApp chats between Avinash and the complainant indicated the possibility of consensual interaction.
Justice Karnik took note of the fact that Avinash had been in custody for over a year and four months since his arrest on April 8, 2022. With the investigation complete and the chargesheet filed, the trial was expected to be prolonged. Moreover, Avinash had no previous criminal record and was a 22-year-old student. Taking these factors into account, the court held that Avinash could be released on bail.
The decision of the Court:
Consequently, the court ordered Avinash Subhash Kamble's release on bail upon furnishing a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties of the same amount. The court also mandated that he report to the Powai Police Station once every first Monday of the month between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Additionally, Avinash was prohibited from making any inducement, threat, or promise to anyone familiar with the case to dissuade them from disclosing information and from tampering with evidence. He was also instructed to provide his contact number and address to the Investigating Officer and was forbidden from entering the jurisdiction of Khar Police Station and contacting the victim.
Case Name: Avinash Subhash Kamble vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Justice M. S. Karnik
Case No.: Bail Application No. 642 of 2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Adv. Pankaj D. Purway a.w Adv. Akshay Bhalerao for the Applicant.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the State.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
