​The South Goa Sessions Court has granted bail to 30-year-old Dharmendra Kumar Prasad in a case involving allegations of sexual exploitation and gang rape registered by Verna Police Station on September 3. The court held that there was no prima facie evidence of gang rape or sexual assault against Prasad, noting significant discrepancies in the complainant’s successive statements and a “no objection” to his release by the victim. On September 3, Verna Police registered an FIR against the primary accused, Arjun Ram, for allegedly cheating, bigamy, concealing his marital status, and sexually exploiting the complainant. She alleged that Arjun deceived her into a relationship with false promises of marriage and a promising future, solemnized an invalid marriage at a temple in Banaras in August 2024 despite already being married with three children, coerced her into multiple abortions, and took Rs 5 lakh from her savings to open a store. In a supplementary statement recorded on September 30, 2026, the complainant alleged that, after their marriage, Arjun mistreated her and pushed her toward his acquaintances, including Dharmendra Prasad and another individual named Ravi, and subjected her to sexual assault. Consequently, the police added the charge of gang rape, leading to Prasad’s arrest on October 2. Adv. Savio Noronha, representing Dharmendra Kumar Prasad, argued that Prasad—an employee in the store department of a firm in Verna who lives with his wife and six-month-old child—had been falsely implicated as an afterthought. He further submitted that, in an initial cheating complaint filed on August 4, 2026, the complainant made no mention of sexual assault. Even in her formal statement recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Vasco, she detailed allegations only against Arjun Ram and did not mention Prasad. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, arguing that the case involved gang rape, that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, and that Prasad was a flight risk as he was a native of Bihar. However, the complainant herself submitted an official reply before the court stating that she had no objection to Prasad being granted bail, and confirmed that the submission was made voluntarily and without coercion. While granting bail to Dharmendra Kumar Prasad, the court observed that the core dispute lay between the complainant and Arjun Ram. It emphasized that Prasad’s name was absent from the statement recorded before the Magistrate and that the victim had raised no grievance against his release. The court remarked that preliminary investigative steps, such as Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis and witness examination, did not warrant Prasad’s continued judicial custody. The court allowed the bail application and ordered Prasad’s release on a personal bond of Rs 30,000 with one surety of a like amount.