Allowing physical contact is not a license for sexual assault: HC

The High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a police accused of rape, observing that an initial permission to have physical intimacy does not constitute a license for continued sexual assault.

If the accused in this case who is related to the investigative system is granted anticipatory bail, he may try to create difficulties in the investigation. Moreover, he can also put pressure on the victim, said the single bench of Justice Nizamuddin Jamadar while refusing to grant relief to the accused.

A police officer from Khadki in Pune was accused of physical, mental and sexual abuse by his own female colleague. Also, the victim had alleged that the accused threatened her with a pistol and threatened to circulate her photographs and tapes if she were to read such material to anyone. She filed a police complaint in this regard on September 4. Therefore, fearing arrest, the petitioner approached the High Court for anticipatory bail.

The petitioner and the victim were having an extra-marital affair. Advocate Satyavrat Joshi on behalf of the petitioner claimed that the victim had divorced her husband. So, a claim was made on behalf of the victim that the petitioner had threatened to kill her husband and the petitioner's claim was opposed. On the other hand, it is not only a case of extramarital affairs but also of subsequent sexual abuse and threats. 

Advocate Ashwini Takalkar on behalf of the state government told the court that there is sufficient evidence in this regard. While bringing to the attention of the court the statements of the victim's mother, son and other associates, he also drew the court's attention to the violent behaviour and nature of the petitioner and opposed the plea of the petitioner.

Whether the initial act of intercourse was without the victim's consent will come up during a regular trial. However, from the evidence presented, other information, the court noted that the nature of the petitioner is violent. Also, the court rejected the plea of the petitioner for anticipatory bail, clarifying that the charges against him were serious.