‘Relationship Not Of Consent But Under Threat & Compulsion’; HC Rejects Sourin Bhatt’s Anticipatory Bail Plea

Cuttack: Trouble seems to be mounting for playback singer Sourin Bhatt with the Orissa High Court rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in connection with a sexual harassment case.

The bail application was filed under Section 438 CrPC by the petitioner in the apprehension of arrest for his alleged involvement in the offences registered under Sections 417/493/376(2)(n)/341/323/294/506 of IPC at Cuttack Mahila police station.

While turning down his plea, a single bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that the case requires an investigation with active presence of the petitioner. “This Court does not find the case to be fit for grant of pre-arrest bail. Keeping in view the nature of allegations as emerged from the materials on record, the circumstances appearing, the seriousness and gravity of the offences, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail accordingly stands rejected,” the order read.

The case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by a woman, a resident of Cuttack city who works in a private bank, at Mahila police station here on June 12, alleging that he harassed her both physically and mentally on the promise of marrying her and giving her a break in singing, after being in a relationship for several years. She also accused the vocalist of having taken Rs 10 lakh from her.

Also Read: Singer Sourin Bhatt Responds To Harassment Slur After Deposing Before Police In Odisha’s Cuttack City

The court further said: “In the case, in hand, apparently there appears materials prima facie to hold the petitioner to have cohabitated with the informant sometimes in the guise of getting her marry, sometime under the threat to get the objectionable photographs viral and it also reveals from the case record that the petitioner did not disclose to the Informant that he is married having a child, rather committed to marry her and developed the physical relation. The informant having come to know about the marital status when refused to continue relation, the Petitioner thoroughly blackmailed her to get the objectionable photographs viral and satisfied his lust thereby brings the allegations within the mischief of the offence U/s. 376 of IPC.”

Refusing to accept the petitioner’s submission that the woman is matured and capable enough to sense the relationship to be one of consensual nature, the HC said that it is a plea just to avoid humiliation in the society. “The case record reveals that the relationship continued since the year 2016 and a constant threat on the informant from the side of the petitioner echoed in the mind of the informant that discontinuation of relationship with the petitioner may prove abortive to her carrier and character. In such situation the relationship even though continued for years cannot be taken to be one with the consent of the informant but under threat and compulsion. In any case, keeping in view the allegations, its gravity and seriousness in absence of material to deduce the allegations are only tarnish the image of the petitioner; it requires an investigation with active presence of the petitioner,” it added.