In a pivotal ruling, the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Vishal Nagnath Shinde, in the case Vishal Nagnath Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2605 of 2024), highlighting that a married woman cannot use a false promise of marriage as grounds for consenting to sexual intercourse. The court reasoned that since both parties were already married, the claim of inducement through the promise of marriage was legally untenable. Justice Manish Pitale delivered this ruling on September 26, 2024.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR (No. 0083 of 2024) filed at Shikrapur Police Station, Pune, on January 18, 2024. The informant, a married woman, alleged that Vishal Nagnath Shinde had sexually assaulted her after promising marriage. She stated that the applicant took her to a lodge, where he had non-consensual intercourse, and subsequently threatened to circulate videos of the encounter after ceasing communication with her.
Shinde was charged under Section 376 (rape) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Legal Issues Involved
The case raised several key legal issues:
1. False Promise of Marriage as Ground for Rape Allegation:
The primary legal issue revolved around whether a married woman could claim she was misled by a false promise of marriage to consent to sexual intercourse. The court needed to determine if such a claim had legal merit when both parties were already married.
2. Consent and Deception in Sexual Relations:
Another critical issue was the concept of consent under Section 376 of the IPC. The court examined whether consent obtained through a promise of marriage, if proven false, could be invalidated, particularly in the context of married individuals.
3. Criminal Intimidation and Threats of Circulating Videos:
The informant accused Shinde of threatening to circulate videos of their sexual encounter, raising the question of whether such threats, if unproven, could be grounds for denying anticipatory bail.
Court’s Observations
Justice Pitale made important observations on the nature of the informant’s claims. The court emphasized that a married woman, being fully aware of her own marital status, could not claim she was misled by a promise of marriage, as she was already ineligible to marry Shinde.
The court noted:
“In the first place, the informant herself being a married woman, cannot claim that she fell prey to the false promise of marriage given by the applicant. Being a married woman, she was clearly aware that she would not be able to marry the applicant.”
This observation became central to the court’s ruling that the allegation of sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage could not be sustained in the given circumstances.
Further, on the issue of the alleged threats to circulate videos, the court observed that there was no evidence that any such videos had been circulated during the period when Shinde enjoyed interim protection from arrest. This lack of action by the applicant weakened the prosecution’s case.
Arguments by Counsel
Advocate Nagesh Somanath Khedkar, representing Shinde, argued that both the informant and the applicant were married, rendering the promise of marriage claim irrelevant. He emphasized that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation by surrendering his mobile phone and attending the police station as required, except for one date, which clashed with a court hearing.
The prosecution, represented by APP Mr. Balraj B. Kulkarni, opposed the bail application, citing non-cooperation by the applicant and emphasizing that the applicant had missed crucial investigation dates. The Sessions Court had earlier denied the application on these grounds.
Decision of the Court
In light of the above, Justice Pitale granted anticipatory bail to Vishal Nagnath Shinde under the following terms:
1. Bail Conditions: Shinde was ordered to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000, along with one or two sureties of the same amount.
2. Cooperation with Investigation: The applicant must present himself before the investigating officer and cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
3. No Contact with Informant: Shinde was directed not to contact the informant or tamper with evidence in any manner.
4. Consequences of Violation: The court warned that any breach of these conditions would result in the cancellation of the bail.
