In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has revoked the bail granted to a Mumbai businessman accused of a brutal assault on a pregnant woman that resulted in her losing her child. Justice Neela Gokhale delivered the order on Thursday, directing the accused to surrender before the trial court within two days.
Court Orders Surrender After Bail Cancelled
Justice Neela Gokhale ordered Goregaon West resident Rhythm Goyal (25) to surrender before the trial court within "two days from today." The court explicitly stated that failure to comply would lead to his arrest by the concerned police, who must then produce him before the trial court. This order came in response to a petition filed by the 33-year-old victim, challenging a December 8 bail order from the Dindoshi sessions court.
Details of the Horrific Assault Emerge
The victim, who worked as a guest relation manager at a nightclub in Andheri, was eight weeks pregnant at the time of the incident on November 15. According to the First Information Report (FIR), after her shift ended around 1:30 PM, she entered a lift. Rhythm Goyal, accompanied by two men and a woman, boarded the lift in an inebriated state.
The situation escalated when Goyal pointed a laser torch at her inappropriately. When she objected, he verbally abused her, making a derogatory comment about women who work at night. As she tried to take the torch away, he hit her with it, and his friends joined the assault. One friend punched her in the nose, while another attempted to hit her with a liquor bottle.
Despite her pleas that she was pregnant, Goyal allegedly punched her in the stomach. She was eventually rescued by bouncers and rushed to a hospital, where she received the devastating news of her miscarriage.
Legal Grounds: Serious Charges and Procedural Misinterpretation
Goyal was booked under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including the serious charge under Section 89 for causing miscarriage without a woman's consent, an offence punishable with life imprisonment or up to ten years. The sessions court had granted bail citing alleged non-compliance by police with procedural sections of the BNSS related to notice and grounds of arrest.
However, Justice Gokhale, upon reviewing documents submitted by prosecutor Anamika Malhotra, noted that Goyal was indeed issued a notice to appear, and both he and his father had acknowledged receipt of the grounds of arrest. The judge agreed with the arguments put forth by the victim's advocates, Bahraiz Irani and Shane Santos, that the procedural safeguards cited by the lower court apply to offences with a maximum punishment of seven years, not to the far more severe Section 89.
The High Court emphasized that in serious offences like this, courts must consider the nature of the accusations and the manner in which the crime was committed. Justice Gokhale pointed out that the trial court had "limited its finding on the alleged procedural lapses" while ignoring the gravity of the crime. Witnesses had seen the victim bleeding from her head.
"The applicant has lost her child on account of the assault on her by the respondent... The trial court has ignored relevant material on record, failed to consider the gravity of offence and misconstrued provisions... of BNSS," Justice Gokhale concluded, refusing to stay the order for three weeks.
