Bombay HC grants bail to man booked for raping woman at her husband’s behest

The Bombay high court (HC) has granted bail to a man booked for allegedly having sexual relations with a woman at the behest of her husband.

Though the woman had identified the accused, he was granted bail on the grounds that it was not clear if he had sexual relations with the woman and as the act was done on the prompting of the husband, it did not attract section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with punishment for rape.

A bench of justice PD Naik, while hearing the bail application of the man accused for raping the complainant between 2015 and 2018, was informed that the applicant had been arrested in the course of investigation after the woman complained that she was forced by her husband to have sexual relations with other men in his presence.

As per the complaint, the woman was married in 2009 to a person who was working in the merchant navy. She alleged that after his return from the ship in 2015, the husband invited a couple to their home. After consuming liquor, the husband’s friend had sexually assaulted the complainant. The next day, the husband informed her that he had recorded the act and had himself asked the friend to have sex with her. Similar incidents took happened in 2016 and 2018 also, allegedly at the behest of the husband. The woman claimed that she was forced to comply as the husband had threatened to make the objectionable video viral.

The complaint further stated that the woman was sexually abused by the husband too and was also forced to have unnatural sex. She finally lodged the complaint in February 2019 against the husband and other persons who had sexually assaulted her.

The advocate for the applicant submitted that though the incidents had occurred between 2015 and 2018, the complaint was lodged in 2019 and hence, there was inordinate delay in lodging the first information report (FIR).

She further submitted that though her client was identified by the woman in an identification parade, a vague role was attributed to him. In light of this offence, section 376 (rape) cannot be applied to the applicant.

The additional public prosecutor submitted that the woman was forced to indulge into sexual relationship by her husband with other persons and was threatened and a video recording of the sexual assault was also done. The applicant was identified and his role in the act has also been defined and hence the application should be rejected.

After hearing the submissions the bench observed, “Prima facie it appears that section 376 may not be attracted against applicant. Since the trial is pending, giving such finding is not warranted. The applicant is in custody for a period of about one and half year.” In light of this the court granted him bail.

Source: Read Full Article