Consensual Relationship Does Not Give License To Exploit Partner: Bombay HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Extortion And Unnatural Sex
|The Bombay High Court has denied bail to Pritam Oswal, a resident of Hadapsar, Pune, who is accused of multiple charges, including outraging modesty, abduction, extortion, rape, and unnatural sex.
The Single-Judge Justice NJ Jamadar, emphasized that a consensual relationship does not justify exploitation.
"Consensual relationship, even if the submission on behalf of the applicant is taken at par, does not give a license to exploit the partner, much less in the manner in which the material on record, in the instant case, indicates," the Court said.
The Court highlighted statements from various witnesses that revealed the applicant's mistreatment of the victim, with whom he had an extramarital affair. The court noted that Oswal threatened the victim while in custody and attempted to escape, further substantiating the allegations of sexual, physical, and financial exploitation.
"....the applicant has given threat to the first informant while in custody and even made an attempt to escape from the custody cannot be lost sight of. Cumulatively it appears that the applicant had sexually, physically and financially exploited the first informant," the Single-Judge said.
According to the prosecution, Oswal met the victim on Facebook and initially offered to help with her litigation. On July 10, 2020, he allegedly took her to a secluded place under the pretext of meeting an advocate and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her at gunpoint, recording the act on video. He continued to exploit her sexually on multiple occasions. He was registered for offences punishable under Sections 307, 376, 376(3)(n), 376(h), 376(d), 377, 384, 385, 366, 354, 354(A), 313, 502(2), 506, 504 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Section 135 read with 37 (1) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
The prosecution further alleged that Oswal forced the victim to abort when she conceived and assaulted her to induce a miscarriage. In May 2023, when the victim visited Oswal's house to retrieve her gold and money, he and his father allegedly sexually assaulted her again.
In his defense, Oswal claimed the relationship was consensual and that he only physically abused her when she insisted on aborting the pregnancy, as he wanted her to deliver their child. He also argued that there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR against him.
The Court considered these arguments but found the statements from witnesses, including the applicant's tenant, employee, and independent witnesses, credible. These testimonies, along with WhatsApp conversations between Oswal and the victim, supported the allegations of sexual exploitation and threats. "The aforesaid statements of the witnesses are required to be read in conjunction with transcript of the Whats-app conversation between applicant the first informant which prima facie substantiate, by and large, the allegations of the first informant with regard to sexual exploitation and giving threats, including a threat that the applicant would not spare the first informant even if he is sentenced for her murder," it said.
The Court noted that while granting relief to the co-accused this court had adverted to the aspect of the improbability of the allegations qua the father of the applicant, and said, "However, that cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant against whom there is overwhelming material. I am, therefore, not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant."
While rejecting the Bail, the Court clarified, "...the observations made hereinabove are confined for the purpose of determination of the entitlement for bail and they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the guilt or otherwise of the applicant and the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove."
Cause Title: Pritam Chandulal Oswal v. The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:26037]
Appearance:-
Applicant: Advocates Kuldeep Nikam, Om. N. Latpate
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mahalaxmi Ganapathy
Click here to read/download the Order