Court grants bail to doctor booked for raping receptionist

A doctor in Mumbai has been granted bail after being accused of raping and assaulting his receptionist, with the court citing a consensual relationship.

MUMBAI: The sessions court last week granted bail to a 38-year-old doctor from Thane who was booked for allegedly raping, assaulting, and causing non-consensual miscarriage thrice of his receptionist earlier this year.

HT Image

“The informant (receptionist) is an adult and kept relations with the accused out of love and consensual, knowing that he is a married man with two kids. Hence, further judicial incarceration (of the accused) without trial is not warranted,” observed the additional sessions judge Ashish Ayachit.

According to the FIR, Suraj Yadav had been in a relationship with the informant since June 2009 under the guise of marrying her, even though he was already married with two children.

It is further contended that the accused married the informant in 2010 and transferred a few flats in her name. However, the receptionist alleges that he forced her to undergo abortion thrice during this period and would often assault her with fist blows.

The informant further claimed that despite the flats being in her name, Yadav had been issuing notices to the informant’s family to empty those flats.

Representing Yadav, the defense vehemently argued that the informant had been residing in the flat owned by the doctor and that the informant was aware of his marital status before she agreed to have a live-in relationship with him.

The accused had already paid more than ₹10 lakh to her from a period of 2019 and 2022, however, the informant lodged a false report to extract more money from Yadav and prepared a forged marriage certificate showing that their marriage was solemnised in 2010, the defence claimed.

The prosecution opposed the bail application because this was not only an offence against a woman, but the offence also pertained to cheating and fraudulent conduct of the accused.

“I was in a relationship with him. But due to a property dispute, there was mental and physical harassment, and there is danger to my life,” said the victim while praying to reject the accused’s bail plea.

While granting the accused bail, the court relied on a Supreme Court judgement from 2019, which underscored the difference between a ‘breach of promise’ and a ‘false promise’.

“A breach of promise cannot be said as a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The “consent” of a woman under section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a “misconception of fact” where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act,” the Supreme Court judgement said.

The court also directed Yadav to execute a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and ordered not to circulate any photos or messages on social media about his relationship with the informant.