A sessions court in Dindoshi recently refused to grant pre-arrest bail application to TV actor Armaan Tahil who is facing arrest based on the complaint of a model who has alleged rape and cheating.
A sessions court in Dindoshi recently refused to grant pre-arrest bail application to TV actor Armaan Tahil who is facing arrest based on the complaint of a model who has alleged rape and cheating. According to the complainant, the actor allegedly raped her on false promise of marriage.
Tahil in his bail plea had argued that he had not committed any offence and the complainant is harassing him. He claimed that the woman refused to leave his house and had threatened him of a false police case, if he tried to get rid of her.
On the other hand, the investigating officer strongly opposed the anticipatory bail plea on the ground that this is a serious offence against a woman and if granted bail there is a possibility that he would threaten the victim or may abscond to his hometown and would not be available to face the trial. The officer also produced certain photographs and other messages exchanged between the accused and the complainant.
After hearing the arguments, additional sessions judge R.N. Pandhare observed that the offence was of serious nature and the possibility of the applicant not cooperating with the investigation could not be ruled out. The judge also said that for medical examination, the presence of the applicant might be required. “Keeping in view the accusations in the FIR and as the investigation is in progress, releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail, at this stage, will not be justified,” observed the judge and rejected the application.
The prosecution case is that the complainant, who is a model and also works with an event management firm, moved to Mumbai from Madhya Pradesh in 2011 and met Tahil at the ISKCON temple in Juhu in 2013. They kept meeting each other at parties and fell in love within months.
According to the complainant, Tahil allegedly had physical relationship with her and told the complainant that he loved her and would marry her. The FIR said that on March 2016, the applicant took the informant to his house to live with him. He assured her of marriage and had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Later, when the complainant realised that Tahil was already in another relationship, she filed the complaint.
