Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has declined pre-arrest bail to a 26-year-old man accused of physically exploiting a 24-year-old woman by promising her a role in a film. The court noted that the accused later circulated her objectionable photographs and videos on social media platforms.
Court's Prima Facie Observation
Justice Shyam Chandak, presiding over the vacation bench, observed that the applicant had ill intentions from the beginning. The judge stated, "It appears that, since beginning, the applicant had ill-intention to misuse the photos/videos of the victim. Thus, the applicant misused the trust invested in him by the respondent. Said act of the applicant has ruined the life of the respondent. Therefore, there is a prima facie case of the offence of rape."
Case Background
The accused approached the vacation court apprehending arrest by a police station in Pune. The sessions court had already rejected his anticipatory bail application on May 8. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the woman met the accused on May 12, 2024, for a film audition. He claimed he would directly cast her and later said he was searching for a good film story for her. They became friends and had physical relations since October 2024. The accused took her photographs and videos, promising to keep them as a memory.
Initially, the accused did not disclose that he was married. After his wife learned about their relationship, they decided to stop meeting on January 25, 2026. The following day, the accused sent a threatening message, saying that if she went anywhere for romping, he would upload the photos and videos on social media. The woman blocked his number. On April 17, she discovered that the content had been made viral.
Arguments and Rebuttal
The accused's advocate, Vipul Dushing, argued that the FIR mentioned the physical relations were consensual and that the photos and videos had been deleted from his phone. He contended that there was no offence of rape or under the Information Technology Act, and his custody was not required.
However, Justice Chandak noted that the applicant suppressed the fact of his marriage and child and induced the woman to develop a physical relationship on the false pretext of giving her work in a film. The judge remarked that the accused "only made a show that he has deleted the subject photos/videos." Therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential to collect important electronic evidence. The court concluded that granting anticipatory bail would adversely affect a fair and effective investigation in this case.
