No pre-arrest bail for man, two sons booked for rape

THE WOMAN’S HUSBAND REFUSED TO HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH HER AND SHE DISCOVERED HE WAS UNDERGOING TREATMENT FOR IMPOTENCY

MUMBAI : A bench of Bombay high court (HC) on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to three members of an Uttar Pradesh family – a man and his two sons – accused of domestic violence and sexual assault of their newly-wed daughter-inlaw. HC’S decision was based on the observation that as the court had already refused to quash the first information report (FIR) against the family.

The woman in her complaint had stated that after her wedding in 2019 when she was residing at her matrimonial home, she was pressured for dowry. In January 2020, she was allegedly injected with some drug and raped by the father-in-law, a doctor, in the presence of her husband and brother-in-law. Though the offences had occurred in UP, the complaint was registered at Santacruz police station on June 16, 2020, when the woman returned to her parent’s home.

A single bench of justice Sarang Kotwal, while hearing the anticipatory bail application of the accused, was informed by advocate Girish Kulkarni that the Santacruz police station did not have jurisdiction and there was a delay in filing the complaint. He further submitted that though the offences were serious, the custodial interrogation of the three would not yield anything, and hence they should be granted anticipatory bail.

According to the complainant, after her wedding, her husband refused to have any physical contact with her and she came to know that he was undergoing treatment for impotency. After being raped by her father-in-law, the survivor was sent to her parental home later in the month and her parents were told that if their dowry demands were not met, the woman could not return to her matrimonial home.

While opposing the application, the state informed the court that the three had not cooperated in the investigation as the husband had refused to undergo a medical test. Additional public prosecutor SH Yadav further informed the court that due to the serious nature of the offences, an earlier division bench had refused to quash the FIR on August 13, 2020.

“In such cases, delay in lodging the FIR can be explained by the victim. But that has to be considered at the time of trial. This is the stage of anticipatory bail. The gravity of the offence cannot be overlooked,” the bench observed.