Man agrees to pay for baby, rape charges dropped

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently granted bail to a 40-year-old man booked for raping and impregnating his subordinate at a call centre.

The court stated that the 29-year-old victim was a working woman in Mumbai and knew the consequences of her acts and hence could not put the blame squarely on the accused saying that he forced her into indulging herself.

The court further noted that as there was no allegation of having a physical relationship under the false pretext of marriage and the accused had agreed to pay ₹10 lakh towards his paternal responsibility, he deserved to be released on bail.

The single judge bench of justice Bharati Dangre was informed by his counsel, advocate Anil Lalla, that the relationship between the duo was consensual and though the physical acts had been going on since March 2021, the complaint was lodged in August 2021 after the victim disclosed that she was pregnant and his client had suggested to abort.

As per the complaint, the woman has taken up a job as a team leader in the call centre and the accused was her boss. The complaint alleged that he forced her into having physical relations with him, by threatening to remove her from the job.

It is alleged that she was taken to hotels and was sexually exploited by the accused and later when she became pregnant, he also sent her money to abort and warned her against disclosing their relationship to anyone. She then lodged a complaint and the man was arrested in September 2021.

Additional public prosecutor S H Yadav for the state and advocate Ajinkya Udane for the victim had initially opposed the application, stating that the accused had taken advantage of his position and sexually exploited his subordinate.

However, when the advocate for the accused informed the bench that though the DNA test results were awaited, his client was willing to pay ₹10 lakh towards the child’s upkeep. Udane then submitted that acceptance of the amount would only be on the ground that the woman could later claim maintenance for herself and the child, to which the bench agreed.

After hearing the submissions and going through the statements of the woman’s colleagues wherein they confirmed that the duo was having proximity, the bench noted, “The Prosecutrix (survivor) is not a minor and since she was working in a city like Mumbai, she is capable of understanding the consequences of her actions that she permitted indulgence clearly at the instance of the applicant cannot be accepted.”

“Even as per the victim’s statement, she never alleged that it was under the promise of marriage that the relationship was established, but her version was that on the pretext that she would lose the job, she was coerced into the relationship,” said the bench.

The court further noted that as the applicant had accepted paternity of the child and had shown readiness to give ₹10 lakhs towards the child, who is born out of the alleged relationship, he deserved to get bail.