Mumbai: The Dindoshi Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to Assistant Police Inspector (API) Devendra Kate in a case registered by Amboli Police alleging sexual relations on a false promise of marriage, forced termination of pregnancy and criminal intimidation.Additional Sessions Judge Neeta S. Anekar allowed Kate’s anticipatory bail registered under BNS sections 69, 89 and 351(2) of rape, causing a miscarriage without the woman’s consent and criminal intimidation. The court granted anticipatory bail to Kate on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or two sureties.According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that she came into contact with Kate in 2024 while pursuing a criminal complaint. Their friendship allegedly developed into a romantic relationship. The woman claimed that Kate established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage at hotels in Amboli and continued the relationship over several months. She further alleged that he induced her to terminate two pregnancies and later avoided her, leading her to attempt suicide.Seeking pre-arrest bail, Kate, through his lawyer Karan Mehta, denied the allegations and contended that the relationship was consensual. He argued that the complainant was fully aware of his marital status and had voluntarily continued the relationship. The defence also submitted that the allegations were made after he refused further monetary demands.The prosecution and the complainant opposed the application expressed apprehension that the applicant, being a police officer, could influence witnesses.After examining the FIR and case diary, the court observed that the complainant was an educated and socially active woman who had been in a relationship with the applicant for a considerable period. The court noted that the relationship continued even after the first alleged termination of pregnancy, indicating a prima facie consensual relationship between two adults.The judge held that whether the promise of marriage was false from the inception and whether the complainant was unaware of the applicant’s marital status were issues that would have to be decided during trial. The court further observed that the grounds cited for custodial interrogation were not justified at this stage.The court directed him to cooperate with the investigation, refrain from influencing witnesses, not tamper with evidence, not leave India without permission and not contact the complainant during the investigation, inquiry or trial. Any breach of the conditions would result in cancellation of bail.
