HC denies bail in matrimonial deception case | Mumbai news
MUMBAI: In a recent ruling, the Bombay high court denied bail to a man accused of luring a woman into a relationship by posing as unmarried, leading to allegations of rape and cheating.
The accused has been in judicial custody since his arrest on June 23, 2020, and had sought release under the Criminal Procedure Code, citing prolonged detention. However, Justice Manish Pitale dismissed the bail application pointing to delays in trial proceedings, urging the lower court to expedite the trial.
According to the complainant, Sachin Dilip Sambare created a profile on a matrimonial website where he presented himself as unmarried. The two subsequently developed a relationship, during which the complainant believed he intended to marry her and consented to a physical relationship. She later discovered that Sambare was already married and engaged to another woman, prompting her to file a police complaint. She also alleged that she became pregnant twice, but Sambare coerced her into terminating both the pregnancies, resulting in health complications.
Following these revelations, she lodged an FIR on May 31, 2020, at Rabale police station, leading to charges under sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 417 (cheating), and 509 (insult to modesty) of the Indian Penal Code.
Sambare’s bail application had previously been denied on August 20, 2021, and again on July 7, 2023. The complainant’s case was represented by advocates Prashant Pandey and Dinesh Jadhwani, who highlighted the alleged manipulation and abuse of trust by Sambare.
Sambare, represented by advocates Mansha Khemka and Twinkle Khemka, renewed his bail application in 2023, claiming excessive pre-trial detention.
The high court initially sought a trial report from the district judge and additional sessions judge in Belapur, Navi Mumbai, on September 20, 2024. The report, submitted on October 9, 2024, noted procedural delays, some of which were attributed to adjournments requested by Sambare himself, who cited his pending high court bail application.
Justice Pitale emphasised that Sambare’s repeated requests for adjournments contradicted his claim of “long incarceration pending trial” and had hindered trial progress. The court determined that no significant changes in circumstances justified reconsidering bail on merit.
While denying bail, the high court also instructed the sessions court to expedite the trial by framing charges promptly and completing the trial within a year. It, however, allowed Sambare the right to renew his bail application should the trial exceed this timeline due to reasons beyond his control.
