NISHANT NIRANJAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant, aged 30 years and who is a Corporate Trainer by profession, is seeking his release on bail in C.R. No.88 of 2020 registered with Samarth Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376 , 377 , 328 and 323 of the IPC.

(2.) The said FIR was registered on 20/03/2020 on a complaint of the prosecutrix, who was working as a Software Engineer in a Company. The FIR is instituted on 20/03/2020 and the period of occurrence of the offence is stated to be between 02/09/2019 and 04/09/2019. In the complaint, the prosecutrix, who is 23 years, stated that in the month of October, 2017, she came in contact with the Applicant and, at that time, she was pursuing her graduation in Computer Science in an Engineering College. The Applicant was recruited as a Corporate Trainer and he informed the prosecutrix that he was a resident of Delhi and he has taken his education in Delhi. The mobile numbers were exchanged. For two years i.e. from 2017 to 2018, the Applicant and the prosecutrix maintained a casual relationship. It is then alleged that suddenly in February, 2019, the Applicant started making phone calls on her mobile phone and made attempts to develop proximity. It is alleged that he used to keep a constant watch on her and told her that her phone had been hacked by him and if she did not respond, he will put her photographs on the social media. On completion of her education, the prosecutrix was recruited in a Company and, as part of her job, she was expected to attend a training in Mumbai. The Applicant met her on 02/09/2019 in Pune. She was called by him to the Airport and he informed her that he was in transit and he will meet her. It was alleged that he threatened her that if she refuse to come, he will call her parents. Left with no alternative, she went to the Airport and he forced her to accompany him to a hotel. She was threatened that he would call her parents and when she expressed her reluctance on the ground that she had not informed her parents, he persuaded her to give a false reason that she was required to attend a training for seven days and, if require, show them a fake e-mail. She acted as per his dictates and accompanied him to the hotel in Pune. She made payments by using her PhonePe App. It is then alleged that he attempted to develop physical intimacy, to which she objected. It is also alleged that he gave her one tablet and, thereafter, she was unable to understand the happenings around her and he established unnatural physical relation with her and also recorded the same in his mobile phone. She then referred to an incident dated 03/09/2019, when again physical relationship was established when she stayed with him in the hotel. The same incident was repeated on 04/09/2019. Thereafter, it is alleged that the Applicant proceeded to Delhi and started blackmailing her under the pretext that he would make the video viral and also forward it to her colleagues in the office and her parents. It is alleged that on several occasions, she received telephone calls from the Applicant and he was blackmailing her. This is the gist of the allegations and offences punishable under Sections 376 , 377 , 328 and 323 of the IPC and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act have been invoked and applied.

(3.) The Applicant has been arrested on 07/10/2020 and since then, he is behind the bar. The Complainant got her supplementary statement recorded almost after four months on 24/07/2020. In the said statement, she referred to incident dated 12th, 13th and 14/07/2019 when the Applicant had visited Mumbai and it is alleged that at that time, he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and also recorded a video and took some photographs of the prosecutrix in objectionable position and, under the fear that he may bring dis-reputation to her, she stayed with him in the hotel. It is also alleged that on 13/07/2020, he purchased some clothes by using the A.T.M. card of the prosecutrix and also took cash amount of Rs.54,000/-, which he has not returned till date. It is alleged that she acted under his dictates apprehending that the video clippings and photographs are with him. In the supplementary statement, the prosecutrix stated that the Applicant has history of indulging with several females in this fashion and he uses different identity. She came across one girl, who has also been allegedly cheated in the similar way, and, in fact, the Applicant is married. She further narrated that when the brother of the Applicant was contacted, he also threatened her that they have contacts upto the highest officers and, if she lodge any complaint, he can manage the affairs. The supplementary statement, if perused, apart from giving some additional information, is an attempt to explain the delay in filing the report in respect of the act of sexual AJN indulgence at the instance of the Applicant.