A man accused of raping his partner granted pre-arrest bail after presenting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allegedly signed by the woman. The MOU indicated that the two had agreed to enter a contractual live-in relationship for 11 months, starting from August 1. The court considered this agreement in its decision to grant bail. The case raises questions about the legal standing of such agreements in rape allegations.
Mumbai: A Mumbai man granted pre-arrest bail in a rape case filed by his live-in partner. The court’s decision came after the accused presented a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which stated that the couple entered into a contractual live-in relationship from August 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025.
However, the woman denied signing the document.
The prosecution alleged that the 30-year-old woman met the accused on October 6, 2023. A divorcee, she claimed the man proposed marriage, and they began a relationship. Later, she discovered he involved with another woman. The woman also accused him of blackmailing her with explicit videos and pressuring her to continue the relationship. She alleged she became pregnant, but the accused forced her to take abortion pills. She later found out he already married.
On August 23, 2024, she filed a complaint accusing the man of repeated rape under the false pretense of marriage. Opposing the bail plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Ramesh Siroya argued that the accused’s phone needed to be seized to prevent tampering with evidence.
The complainant also testified, stating that the accused had threatened her and her son and continued to harass her despite her efforts to move locations.
The complainant denied signing the live-in agreement.
In its detailed order, the court noted,
“Aside from any document presented by the applicant/accused, it is prima facie a consensual relationship, as no evidence of force is apparent even in the FIR at the early stage of the relationship.”
The court further remarked,
“The accused’s subsequent relationships with other women and the alleged threats regarding videos suggest coercion. However, the delay in filing the FIR is significant, as the relationship purportedly began in October 2023 without any immediate complaint.”
The court also stated,
“Given the nature of the offense and accusations, custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary. The allegations about the obscene videos lack specificity, and the accused can be asked to cooperate with the investigation.”
As a result, the court granted the accused anticipatory bail for Rs 25,000 with a solvent surety of the same amount.
The accused’s lawyer commented,
“We presented all relevant facts to the honorable session court, and based on these, anticipatory bail was granted. We have learned that this lady has used this method before, entering consensual relationships and later accusing her partners of rape.”
The lawyer further added,
“Although she denied signing the live-in agreement, we proved it was her signature. Her claim of harassment was also dismissed, as my client resides in Colaba and she in Dombivli, making her allegations of harassment implausible.”
Advocate Sunil Pandey, representing the accused, argued that the man and the woman had been in a consensual live-in relationship for the past 11 months, as supported by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and that the rape allegations unfounded.
Judge Shayana Patil, after reviewing the evidence and statements, observed that the relationship initially appeared consensual, with both parties being adults. The judge also noted the delayed filing of the FIR, considering the relationship reportedly began in October 2023 with no immediate complaint.
Read Also: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
Regarding the MOU, Judge Patil pointed out that only a photocopy with a notary stamp provided, lacking sufficient proof of authenticity. The judge concluded that the case appeared to involve a consensual relationship that later deteriorated, leading to the complaint.
Given the nature of the accusations and the available evidence, Judge Patil determined that custodial interrogation unnecessary. The court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, requiring his cooperation with the investigation, particularly regarding the claims of obscene videos, which deemed vague.