The Bombay High Court has refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a man who assaulted a local bar singer as she allegedly refused his advances.
Justice Bharti Dangre, on June 8, rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of Sanjay Surve, observing that his custodial interrogation was required as the allegations against him were serious and “he cannot take benefit of the friendship shared with the complainant once upon a time”.
Surve had approached the HC seeking pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered against him in April at the Charkop police station by a woman alleging harassment.
According to the complaint, Surve and two others attacked the complainant and her sister, both singers at a local bar, on April 1 this year.
The complainant got acquainted with Surve four years back and shared a cordial relationship with him. However, as Surve started misbehaving with the complainant for a year, she stopped talking to him.
Despite her attempt to avoid him, the complainant alleged that he started stalking her and threatened her with dire consequences if she did not cooperate with him.
“As far as sections 354 (outraging modesty) and 354-D (stalking) are concerned, the complainant has specifically narrated that she was stalked by the applicant and considering the said allegation, custodial interrogation of the applicant is very much necessary.”
The HC disagreed with his advocate’s arguments that Surve was falsely implicated in the case and that he shared cordial relations with the complainant. “… it can be seen that there is no reason why the complainant had implicated him of all the persons,” said HC.
Justice Dangre also noted that the complainant has stated in the complaint that “despite her protest, the applicant was desirous of continuing the relationship with her and at times, sought sexual favours from her and on her refusal, assaulted the complainant and her sister”.
“The aforesaid accusations against the applicant, being serious in nature, warrant custodial interrogation, and he cannot take benefit of the friendship shared with the complainant once upon a time,” ruled the HC while rejecting his plea.