A special court in Pune has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a railway police constable, 34, accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting a married woman, 42; threatening her with nude photographs; and assaulting her husband.
Special judge D S Deshmukh rejected the application filed by Vishal Dattatraya Gosavi on August 28. The order was signed on August 29. The court held that Gosavi’s custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation, including recovery of his mobile phone containing the alleged photographs and videos; and seizure of his Hyundai car.
“Custodial interrogation of the applicant transpires to be necessary,” the court observed, adding that his mobile phone was required to recover the alleged videos and photographs of the complainant. The court also said that his medical examination, including a potency test; and seizure of his car were necessary for an effective investigation.
Gosavi had sought anticipatory bail in the crime registered at Kalepadal police station under relevant sections, read with section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. According to the prosecution case recorded in the order, Gosavi and the woman became acquainted in 2024 as they lived in the same housing society and used its gym. They exchanged mobile numbers and began speaking regularly. The woman later contacted Gosavi seeking information about the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for a friend, as he was a police constable and familiar with the law. Gosavi visited the woman’s flat to provide the information. At some point during the visit, he allegedly caught hold of the woman and kissed her without her consent. She pushed him away and asked him to leave, the prosecution told the court. The following day, Gosavi returned when nobody else was present and allegedly had sexual relations with the woman without her consent. She alleged that he threatened to disclose the relationship to her husband if she spoke about the incident, and subsequently visited her flat repeatedly in her husband’s absence. The woman also alleged that Gosavi obtained photographs of her in the nude and later used them to threaten her and demand sexual favours. She alleged that he assaulted her in the society’s parking area on December 24, 2025. According to the FIR as summarised by the court, another confrontation took place after she did not wish Gosavi on his birthday on July 25, 2026. The prosecution alleged that after the woman’s husband answered Gosavi’s phone, Gosavi’s sister called the woman’s husband to their flat where Gosavi and a co-accused assaulted him. The woman subsequently approached Kalepadal police station and lodged a complaint.
Gosavi denied the allegations and claimed that the case stemmed from a consensual relationship that had continued for nearly two years. His lawyer argued that WhatsApp chats, voice messages, photographs, videos and call records showed that the relationship was voluntary and mutually pursued. The defence claimed that the FIR was lodged after the relationship turned sour. It alleged that the woman had threatened to defame Gosavi and damage his service career; and argued that no complaint of sexual assault had been made during the relationship. The investigating officer opposed the bail plea, describing the allegations as serious and stating that Gosavi’s mobile phone and Hyundai car were required for the investigation. Advocate Omkar Nevgi, appearing for the complainant, also opposed the application, arguing that Gosavi’s position as a police constable made him familiar with legal procedures and created a possibility of witnesses being threatened or evidence being tampered with. Nevgi alleged that the accused had repeatedly threatened the complainant and forcibly maintained sexual relations with her. The complainant’s side produced photographs, WhatsApp chats and CCTV footage before the court. The court noted that both sides had produced electronic material; and observed that the WhatsApp conversations contained exchanges of ‘hot words’ between Gosavi and the woman; and said that the chats would need to be collected and investigated with the assistance of the accused. The court also noted that the photographs of the woman showed injuries and that the CCTV footage allegedly captured Gosavi slapping the woman’s husband inside a lift. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material placed before it, the court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the accused’s mobile phone and the alleged photographs and videos. It also held that his medical examination and seizure of his car were required for the investigation. The court concluded that Gosavi had failed to make out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and rejected his application.
{{/usCountry}}Gosavi denied the allegations and claimed that the case stemmed from a consensual relationship that had continued for nearly two years. His lawyer argued that WhatsApp chats, voice messages, photographs, videos and call records showed that the relationship was voluntary and mutually pursued. The defence claimed that the FIR was lodged after the relationship turned sour. It alleged that the woman had threatened to defame Gosavi and damage his service career; and argued that no complaint of sexual assault had been made during the relationship. The investigating officer opposed the bail plea, describing the allegations as serious and stating that Gosavi’s mobile phone and Hyundai car were required for the investigation. Advocate Omkar Nevgi, appearing for the complainant, also opposed the application, arguing that Gosavi’s position as a police constable made him familiar with legal procedures and created a possibility of witnesses being threatened or evidence being tampered with. Nevgi alleged that the accused had repeatedly threatened the complainant and forcibly maintained sexual relations with her. The complainant’s side produced photographs, WhatsApp chats and CCTV footage before the court. The court noted that both sides had produced electronic material; and observed that the WhatsApp conversations contained exchanges of ‘hot words’ between Gosavi and the woman; and said that the chats would need to be collected and investigated with the assistance of the accused. The court also noted that the photographs of the woman showed injuries and that the CCTV footage allegedly captured Gosavi slapping the woman’s husband inside a lift. Considering the nature of the allegations and the material placed before it, the court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover the accused’s mobile phone and the alleged photographs and videos. It also held that his medical examination and seizure of his car were required for the investigation. The court concluded that Gosavi had failed to make out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and rejected his application.
{{/usCountry}}