‘Rabid dog’: Bombay High Court refuses bail to man who ‘raped’ woman on job pretext

“Releasing such an applicant on bail would be against the norms of the society in such a situation. It would be like releasing a mad dog, rather a rabid dog loose into the society. Since the offence of such assault is not merely a physical assault, but it is a destructive assault on the entire personality of the victim, it is akin to the applicant degrading of very soul of the helpless and vulnerable victim, who places her confidence in the Applicant. The law and society expect that, in such cases, the Court must deal such cases with utmost sensitivity,” the court said on August 13.

The court, taking note of the fact that the chargesheet was filed, said the investigation had revealed “certain startling facts”. It said that the material concerning another woman whose statement, according to the order, reflected a similar alleged modus operandi.

Justice Milind N Jadhav denied bail after finding prima facie material of an alleged pattern of targeting vulnerable women with promises of loans and jobs. (Image enhanced using AI)

Woman allegedly lured with loan promise

According to the prosecution case, the complainant, a married woman with two sons, had befriended the accused through Facebook and WhatsApp while looking for finance to start a beauty parlour. The accused allegedly told her that a female bank officer would need to identify birthmarks on her body for the loan documentation. She was called to meet him on September 23, 2025.

The prosecution alleged that the accused took her in his car to a lodge at around 2 pm, claiming that the verification would be carried out there. After the woman allegedly found that no female officer was present, the accused allegedly asked her to wait inside while he went to contact the officer.

According to the prosecution, he returned shortly afterwards, locked the room and sexually assaulted her. The court noted that the lodge owner’s statement confirmed that the complainant and the accused had arrived there. The FIR stated that the woman attempted to shout but was allegedly frightened and overpowered by the accused.

The defence disputed the allegations and argued that the complainant had attempted to frame the accused as part of an extortion attempt involving Rs 6 lakh. It also relied on the approximately 15 minutes the two spent inside the lodge. The court, however, said it was not inclined to accept the extortion theory.

Court notes alleged similar case

The court also considered the statement of another woman whose circumstances, according to the order, were similar. She was allegedly approached while involved in a legal battle concerning dissolution of her marriage. The accused allegedly offered to help her secure a job in the police department, claiming to have influence and told her that a woman police officer would identify her birthmarks for employment purposes.

The prosecution alleged that her modesty was subsequently outraged on the pretext of identifying her birthmarks. The court also noted that the accused had been granted bail in two other similar cases and that the accused was a reporter but had allegedly portrayed or misrepresented himself as a police officer.

Taking note of the photographs place by the police before the court, including a WhatsApp display picture showing a person appearing to be a police officer riding a Bullet motorcycle, the court said this prima facie indicated that the image was used to deceive the second woman in connection with the alleged job promise.

Court rejects defence theory

The court said the chargesheet prima facie showed that the accused had allegedly taken advantage of vulnerable women by luring them with promises of loans, employment or other assistance and gaining their confidence.

It also rejected the contention of the defence that the alleged incidents were consensual and said that four offences of more or less similar nature had been registered against the accused at different places. The court added that there was no material suggesting that the complainant, her husband or previous alleged victims had a personal grudge or enmity against the accused that would have driven them to implicate him.