Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday cancelled the bail granted by a Sessions Court on the ground of alleged procedural lapses to a man accused of assaulting a pregnant woman inside a nightclub lift, an incident that allegedly led to her miscarriage in November.
The High Court was hearing a criminal application filed by the complainant challenging the December 8 order of the Dindoshi Sessions Court granting bail to Rhythm Arvind Goyal after allowing his application on alleged non-compliance with provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) relating to notice of appearance in lieu of arrest and mandatory intimation of arrest to a relative.
Justice Dr Neela Gokhale held that the trial court had “misconstrued” the provisions of the BNSS, ignored material on record and failed to consider the gravity of the offence, which is punishable with life imprisonment.
The Sessions Court had held that these purported procedural lapses vitiated the arrest and infringed the accused’s rights under Article 22 of the Constitution, without recording findings on the merits of the prosecution case.
According to the prosecution case, the complainant, who was in the eighth week of pregnancy and working as a guest relations manager at a club, was assaulted in the early hours of November 15 while travelling in a lift after finishing her shift.
The First Information Report (FIR) alleges that Goyal, accompanied by others and allegedly in an inebriated state, pointed a laser torch at her body, abused her, struck her with the torch, punched her on the stomach, and continued the assault despite being informed that she was pregnant. She was hospitalised and, the next day, learned that she had suffered a miscarriage. Goyal was arrested on November 20.
Allowing the complainant’s plea for cancellation of bail, the High Court held that Section 35(3) of the BNSS, which deals with issuance of notice of appearance instead of arrest, applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. In the present case, the accused is charged under Section 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which carries a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to ten years.
“Only because an unaware or abundantly cautious police official issues notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS does not invoke applicability of the said section,” the court observed, holding that there was no contravention of the provision.
On the issue of communication of the arrest, the court held that the accused had been furnished with written grounds of arrest, and that prompt written intimation of the arrest had also been given to and acknowledged by his father.
Criticising the Sessions Court, justice Gokhale noted that despite the accused having sought bail on merits, the trial court confined itself to purported procedural lapses and failed to evaluate the seriousness of the allegations, eyewitness statements and the manner in which the offence was allegedly committed. Referring to statements of the lift-man and other witnesses recorded during the investigation, the High Court observed that there was material indicating a violent assault resulting in the loss of the complainant’s pregnancy.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Applicant has lost her child on account of the assault on her by the Respondent No.1 [Goyal]. The offence is serious and the prescribed sentence is life imprisonment,” the court said, concluding that the bail order was unsustainable.
The High Court directed Goyal to surrender before the trial court within two days, failing which the police were authorised to arrest him and produce him before the court.