Mumbai: The 21-year-old woman, who has accused Malabar Hill resident and her social media 'friend' Heetik Shah of raping her, was aware of what was happening after the duo came out of the second bar on the night of January 13 when the alleged sexual assault took place. The observation was made by the sessions court in its detailed order reasoning why it granted the pre-arrest bail to Shah on Friday.
The two first met on social media and a month later decided to meet in-person. Narrating her 'ordeal' on Instagram, the woman had claimed that they first visited eateries and pubs till late in the night and that Shah insisted she drinks more, following which she suffered a blackout. She further alleged that Shah took her in an inebriated state to his friend's flat in a high-rise at Sir Pochkhanwala Road in Worli.
“I woke up to him raping me. Despite my efforts to stop him, he continued and even slapped me thrice with intense rage, leaving me scared and intimidated,” her post read. Shah in his defence had claimed that they had been chatting on various platforms and conversations were intimate and flirtatious. He averred that the woman willingly met him, and had alcohol.
In its order, the court noted that as per the FIR, the 'victim' was not in her senses, while coming out of the second bar. However, as claimed by the defence, it can be seen in the CCTV footage that she was not only aware of the happenings around her but also greeted people while exiting the bar.
The court considered the CCTV footage of the clubs where the two had visited. The visuals showed that the accused and the woman bid adieu to people before leaving the second bar and getting into the car. Besides, the court said that Shah is willing to cooperate with the investigation. He is ready for medical examination and also to handover his clothes and other stuff required.
Underlining that the prosecution has not shown any reasonable grounds to arrest Shah, the court said, “It is not the case of prosecution that the applicant has breached the terms and conditions imposed on him, while awarding him interim protection.”
Hence, in view of the cited cases and nature of allegation, it is seen that there is no recovery or discovery to be made at the hands of the applicant for which custodial interrogation is required, read the order.
