The Bombay High Court recently approved bail for an ex-husband who was accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with his former spouse, alongside another individual.

In addition to granting bail to the ex-husband, the high court also extended bail to the individual accused of participating in the alleged forced sexual intercourse with the victim.

The bench, headed by Justice NJ Jamadar, was reviewing a bail petition submitted by Miraj and Asif. The two individuals were charged under Section 376D (Gang Rape) of the Indian Penal Code.

Miraj's ex-wife had divorced him in March 2022 through a Khulanama, yet they continued to reside together with mutual consent. Allegations arose that on August 16, 2022, Miraj coerced his ex-wife into engaging in sexual activity with him and Asif. Despite her refusal, Miraj forcibly removed her clothing, after which both individuals allegedly engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her.

The victim informed her mother about the incident, leading to the registration of an FIR on August 20, 2022, four days after the occurrence.

Advocate Srikhant Rathi, representing Miraj, contended that given the densely populated nature of the area where the alleged incident took place, which was just a few houses away from the victim's mother's residence, the account provided by the first informant is inherently implausible.

Rathi highlighted a delay in filing the FIR and argued that the medical examination did not indicate any injuries sustained by the victim. Additionally, he asserted that the accused were implicated following disputes arising over the payment of alimony, which had not been agreed upon during the dissolution of the marriage.

Additional Public Prosecutor Bapu Vitthalrao Holambe Patil opposed the application, emphasizing that there were distinct and unequivocal accusations of sexual exploitation, and there were no grounds to distrust the victim's account. Nevertheless, the bench approved the application, noting that a prima facie case had been established for exercising discretion in favor of the applicants.

The bench remarked that since the investigation had been concluded and the chargesheet filed, there was no necessity for further custodial interrogation.