Court grants pre-arrest bail to API accused of ‘raping’ colleague

The Bombay High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to assistant police inspector (API) with the Cuffe Parade police Sandip Pise, who was accused of raping a colleague when posted at Dongri in 2014. The court observed that it cannot brush aside the possibility that the “relations between the two was consensual”.

A division bench of justices S S Shinde and N J Jamadar directed that in case of arrest, Pise be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000. It observed, “The appellant (Pise) being a police officer, like the victim, the possibility of fleeing away from justice appears remote.

In the peculiar facts of the case, the direction for release of the appellant in the event of arrest is not likely to hamper the investigation even in respect of recovery of the mobile and investigation in that regard.”

Pise had approached the HC, seeking anticipatory bail after the sessions court rejected his application.

According to the prosecution, Pise and the victim were batchmates since 2013. They were later posted at Dongri police station in 2014 and eventually got intimate.

The victim claimed that in 2014, Pise had a physical relation with her with a promise of marriage. Thereafter, they had a physical relation on multiple occasions. When their seniors and colleagues learnt about this, the victim was transferred to Pune. Pise used to visit her in Pune regularly.

According to the victim, in April 2021, she learnt that Pise was engaged to someone else. When she confronted him, he convinced her that he would marry her.

Pise’s advocate Aabad Ponda argued that the API had the intention to marry the woman. However, they broke up in 2018 and decided to part ways amicably. Pise then got married to another woman in March 2021. However, out of vengeance, the victim filed a false complaint of rape, added Ponda.

Additional public prosecutor Sangeeta Shinde opposed the anticipatory bail plea stating that the API repeatedly exploited the victim. Besides, he refused to marry her since she belonged to a scheduled tribe.

The court, however, said that Pise’s contention that the relation was consensual needs to be taken into consideration. “In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, coupled with the situation in life of the parties, we are of the view that the claim of the appellant that the relations was consensual cannot be brushed aside lightly. Undoubtedly, the question as to whether the physical relations were consensual is a question of fact and is a matter for trial.”