‘Abuse, humiliation not suicide abetment’: Court grants anticipatory bail to advocates

The prosecution alleged that the woman, a divorcee, in 2021 joined a law office as a junior advocate, where she met the accused man, who was also a junior advocate. She alleged that in March 2023, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and continued the relationship by promising to marry her.

She further alleged that he assaulted and harassed her, controlled her movements, compelled her to consume emergency contraceptive pills, introduced her to his family as his prospective wife and lived with her for about two years. It came on record that the co-accused had “supported” the main accused and “abused, humiliated, intimidated and instigated” the woman to attempt suicide.  

Justice N Tukaramji allowed two men accused in a sexual assault and abetment of suicide case.

The main accused alleged refused to marry the woman, made defamatory remarks over her marital status and having a child, and repeatedly prevented her from pursuing other matrimonial alliances by reportedly assuring her that he would marry her.  She alleged that due to the harassment, she attempted suicide on May 24 and July 8.  She also alleged that the accused persons made derogatory remarks during proceedings at the police station and mediation before the local bar body on July 13. Based on her representation dated July 24, the police registered the case.

Two versions 

The petitioners argued that the allegations made in the complaint were false, vague and an afterthought, with the main allegations concerning the promise of marriage and sexual relationship directed against the man whereas, the allegations against the other accused were limited mainly to alleged abuse and humiliation of the woman during mediation.

The main accused claimed that it was a consensual live-in relationship since 2023 and relied on an earlier complaint, financial records showing payments of about Rs 10 lakh, photographs, messages and audio recording in support of subsequent allegations being disputed matters requiring proper appreciation during investigation and trial. The accused persons said that they were practising advocates with no criminal antecedents and that arrest would harm their professional careers.

The complainant and the state counsel opposed bail, arguing the investigation had found prima facie material against both petitioners. They alleged that the man had continued a physical relationship with the complainant on a promise of marriage before refusing to marry her and subjecting her to harassment, while the other accused allegedly intimidated her to commit suicide.

The court observed that at the stage of considering an application for anticipatory bail, it was not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or record findings on the merits of the case and directed the accused persons to furnish their complete residential addresses, mobile numbers and other contact particulars to the Investigating Officer and to promptly intimate any changes therein.