In a shocking turn of events in Mumbai, a 46-year-old man secured pre-arrest bail in a rape case by presenting a ‘live-in relationship agreement’ to the court. The agreement, according to the man, stipulated that neither party would file any sexual harassment claims against the other. However, the woman, aged 29, vehemently denied the authenticity of the document, stating that the signature on the agreement was not hers. This revelation sparked further investigation into the nature of their relationship and the circumstances surrounding the alleged rape.
The woman, a caregiver for the elderly, alleged that the accused, a government employee, had promised to marry her and had repeatedly raped her during their time living together. She claimed that she discovered he was already involved with another woman and had blackmailed her with obscene videos, forcing her to continue the relationship. She further alleged that she became pregnant but was coerced by the accused into taking abortion pills.
The alleged relationship began in October 2023, with the woman, who is a divorcee, accepting the man’s marriage proposal. The woman filed a complaint on August 23, 2024, accusing the man of repeated rapes under false pretenses of marriage. The accused’s lawyer, however, portrayed the case as a ‘fraud,’ claiming that the agreement demonstrated their consensual relationship.
Despite the woman’s claims of coercion and blackmail, the court granted the accused pre-arrest bail on August 29. The judge, Shayana Patil, acknowledged that the initial relationship appeared consensual, with both parties being adults. The court cited the delay in filing the FIR, considering the relationship started in October 2023 without an immediate complaint. However, the judge also noted that the presented document was merely a xerox copy with a notary stamp, lacking concrete evidence of its authenticity. The judge expressed the need for further investigation into the alleged obscene videos, stating the accused should cooperate with the investigation.
This case highlights the complex legal issues surrounding consent and coercion in live-in relationships. While the ‘live-in relationship agreement’ provided a seemingly legal framework, the authenticity of the document remains in question. The court’s decision to grant bail raises concerns about the balance between protecting victims and ensuring the accused’s right to a fair trial. The investigation into the alleged rape and the authenticity of the agreement continues, with the woman’s claims demanding serious attention and the accused’s defense requiring thorough scrutiny.
