MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted bail to a gym owner accused of rape, cheating, and offenses under the Information Technology Act, citing inconsistencies in the complainant’s claims and observing that the case appeared to stem from a soured relationship rather than forceful exploitation.
The accused, Kartik Kumar Naidu, 43, was arrested following allegations made by a gym trainer employed at his fitness centre. The court noted that the complainant had been in a prolonged consensual relationship with Naidu, raising doubts over the allegations.
Naidu and the complainant met in December 2020 when she began working at his gym. Despite both being married with children, they entered into a romantic relationship in November 2021. The complainant continued to meet Naidu at a rented apartment in Mulund, where they engaged in consensual relations. However, in April 2022, she accused Naidu of coercing her into compromising acts for financial gain and misappropriating gym funds.
Naidu’s lawyer, advocate Sutaria, argued that the relationship was consensual, pointing out contradictions in the allegations. He highlighted that the complainant continued meeting Naidu even after the alleged assaults and had accepted ₹3 lakh from Naidu’s wife to remain silent.
Opposing the bail plea, additional public prosecutor Bajoria contended that Naidu had entrapped the complainant and posed a potential threat to her and society. “If an individual conceals the fact that he is involved with multiple women, it constitutes deception, and custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover crucial details,” Bajoria argued.
However, justice Milind N Jadhav, presiding over the single-judge bench, ruled that allegations based on the pretext of marriage were not legally tenable, as neither Naidu nor the complainant were in a position to marry. The court cited Supreme Court precedents, stating that when a complainant is already married, consent for a physical relationship under a false promise of marriage cannot be considered a case of ‘misconception of fact.’
The court also cast doubts on the complainant’s timeline of events and her continued association with Naidu. “It is difficult to believe that a victim of sexual violence would repeatedly place herself in a situation of re-victimisation over a prolonged period,” the court noted.
Given Naidu’s established societal ties, absence of prior criminal records, and willingness to cooperate with the trial, the court granted him bail with stringent conditions. These include regular police reporting, surrendering of electronic devices, and a prohibition on contacting the complainant.