Mumbai Court Rejects Rape Accused's Plea to Open Shop Near Victim's Residence

A sessions court in Mumbai has rejected a plea filed by a 51-year-old rape accused seeking permission to open a shop adjacent to the residence of the victim, ruling that the right to livelihood is not absolute when weighed against bail conditions imposed in a serious sexual offense case.

The applicant, who is accused of raping a 26-year-old mentally challenged woman, had approached the court seeking a relaxation of the bail condition that barred him from entering the vicinity of the victim. He had sought permission to run a pan shop situated at the entrance of the building where the victim resides, citing financial hardship.

Rejecting the application, the court noted that the balance of convenience was clearly against granting the relaxation. The court stated that while it is mindful that bail conditions should not be excessive, oppressive, or unrelated to the purpose of bail, the condition imposed on the applicant has a direct nexus with the allegations in the crime and the location of the victim's residence.

The court observed that on one hand was the applicant's desire to resume his business at a particular location and his pleaded financial hardship, while on the other hand was the critical need to preserve physical distance between the applicant and the victim in a serious sexual offense prosecution.

The sessions court held that the condition directing the applicant not to enter the vicinity where the victim resides continues to be necessary and proportionate. The court added that allowing the applicant to open the shop at the entrance of the building would substantially defeat the primary objective of the bail condition and expose the victim to avoidable and continuous proximity with the accused.