Pune bus rape case: Court rejects survivor’s plea seeking restraining order

Advocate Asim Sarode, who represented the woman before the court, said they have simultaneously moved a similar application before the Pune district collector, who is also the district magistrate and has the authority to issue a “restraining order” against the statements causing “character assassination” of the survivor.

Sarode said district collector Jitendra Dudi is likely to hear the application on Friday. When contacted, Dudi said he would look into the matter.

The 26-year-old woman was allegedly raped twice by the accused in a government-operated empty ‘Shivshahi’ bus stationed at the Swargate depot in Pune in the early hours of February 25. The woman lodged the FIR at the Swargate police station under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections 64, 351 (2).

The police arrested the accused, Dattatraya Ramdas Gade (37), of Gunat village in Shirur taluka of Pune district on February 28.

Earlier, during the arguments over police custody of the accused, the defence lawyers had submitted before JMFC Gaigole that he did not rape the victim and that they had a “consensual physical relation”. Speaking to mediapersons, some family members of the accused also claimed that “it was a case of consensual sex”.

Sarode then filed an application before the court that such statements “are causing a serious blow on the mind of the victim, hence a restraining order may be passed in her favour and her interest”. Sarode presented to the court paper cuttings, news clippings and online content that has been “detrimental to the character of the woman”. He told the court that she had become a victim of fake narratives.

Sarode argued that defamatory narratives being spread about her have been proven totally wrong in the police probe. “The accused and victim were never in contact and there was no exchange of any kind between them…,” he told the court.

To support his arguments, Sarode cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India. He sought a restraining order from the court as per the provisions of Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), for a period of two months, which can be renewed further if needed.

But the court rejected the application on Thursday. The court order stated that as per Section 163 of BNSS, a district magistrate, a sub-divisional magistrate or any other executive magistrate, specially empowered by the state government, have the power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended dangers. “This court is not the said authority empowered under Section 163 of BNSS to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance. Therefore, the present application is not maintainable,” the order mentioned.

It further stated that facts and circumstances in the cited case law i.e Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India and others, are different from the present case.

Meanwhile, the probe into the case has been transferred to the crime branch of the Pune city police. A crime branch team is interrogating the accused, who has been remanded in police custody till March 12 by the court, for further investigation.

Pune city Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar had told mediapersons that steps have been initiated for appointing a special public prosecutor in the case. Besides, attempts are on for constituting a fast track court for conducting the trial of this case.