Mumbai: Reiterating that an accused’s right to earn a livelihood cannot supersede the need to protect a rape survivor from continuous physical proximity to the alleged perpetrator, a sessions court rejected a plea by a 51-year-old pan shop owner —accused of repeatedly raping a woman suffering from intellectual disability and getting her pregnant — to relax his bail conditions so he could reopen his shop near her residence.The accused, who faces the maximum sentence of life imprisonment, was arrested in April 2025 and granted bail three months later, subject to a condition that during the pendency of the trial he would not enter the vicinity where the victim (24) resides until the final decision of the case.The judge noted that the existence of its powers to modify bail conditions does not mean that they are liable to be relaxed merely because the accused subsequently finds the condition inconvenient or financially burdensome. “The applicant does not seek merely to pass through the locality for an unavoidable purpose. He seeks permission to open and conduct his pan shop at or near the entrance of the very building in which the victim resides…Permitting the applicant…would substantially nullify the very object and purpose of the condition imposed while granting bail,” judge Ashwini V Kasture said on Friday.The court rejected the argument that filing of the chargesheet and recording of the victim’s statement removed the need for the condition. “Personal or financial inconvenience cannot be considered in isolation when the proposed activity would bring the accused into the immediate vicinity of the victim in a case involving allegations of a serious sexual offence.” The order noted that no material showed that operating the same pan shop at the same location was the only possible means of livelihood for the accused.Through his advocate, the accused sought relaxation of the condition, saying the investigation had been completed, the chargesheet had been filed, and the victim’s statement had already been recorded. The accused submitted that he was the only earning member of the family, had been without work for about six months, was in financial difficulty, had no criminal antecedents, and had complied with all bail conditions. He claimed false implication and argued that there was no material to support the offences alleged.The prosecution case was that the complainant lived with her mother at the address mentioned in the FIR and that the accused, who ran a pan shop, visited the house, gave Rs 500 to the victim’s mother, offered food to the victim, established physical relations, and threatened the victim not to disclose the incident. Special public prosecutor Ranjana Budhwant opposed the plea.Advocate Lorna Carvaloho, appearing for the intervenor-victim, opposed the plea strongly. The intervenor submitted that the accused was the prime accused and that permitting the pan shop to reopen at the entrance of the victim’s building would create fear and insecurity. The intervenor also claimed that the victim continued to suffer trauma, and that the DNA report was still awaited.
