Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Former Sports Federation President in Sexual Harassment Case
Mumbai: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to the former president of a sports body who faces charges of allegedly sexually harassing and stalking a woman athlete in 2023. Justice Nitin Borkar delivered the verdict on March 4, emphasizing the gravity of the accusations against the applicant.
Court Cites Nature of Allegations in Rejection
Justice Borkar stated, "Considering the nature of the allegations against the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail." The case revolves around incidents that began in June 2022 when a mixed martial arts training center operated by the athlete and her husband became affiliated with the Mixed Martial Arts India Federation, where the applicant served as president.
The alleged harassment escalated in November 2023 while the athlete was in Albania for an International Mixed Martial Arts judge and referee examination. According to the complaint, the applicant summoned her to his hotel room under the pretense of reviewing a presentation. Upon her departure, he reportedly hugged and kissed her on the cheeks without consent.
Details of the Alleged Harassment and Stalking
Following this encounter, the applicant allegedly engaged in persistent stalking behavior, sending the athlete repeated messages via Instagram and WhatsApp that included phrases such as 'love you' and 'my sweetheart.' He is accused of making inappropriate comments, including telling her that "if she would have been single, he would have proposed to her," and inappropriately touching her during various federation events.
The prosecution argued that the athlete felt compelled to respond to these messages due to threats that she would be barred from participating in federation sports if she refused. The High Court had previously noted in June 2025 that the messages "demonstrate sexual overtures" and observed the athlete crying while recounting her ordeal, stating she "suffered great anguish at the hands of [the applicant]."
Legal Arguments and Defense Claims
Senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, representing the applicant, contested the charges on several grounds:
- He highlighted a delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR), suggesting it was a retaliatory move.
- Chavan claimed the FIR was a "counterblast" to disciplinary action taken against the athlete's husband for assaulting a senior coach in Albania and making defamatory statements against his client.
- He argued that even if the allegations were accepted, they did not meet the essential legal criteria for the invoked offenses.
- The defense noted that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, which they asserted was substantially complete, and had previously been granted interim protection by the High Court in July 2025.
Prosecution Opposition and Court's Final Order
Prosecutor P H Gaikwad and the complainant's advocates, Aadil and Aalam Parsurampuria, strongly opposed any relief for the applicant. They pointed out that the FIR was registered following the High Court's directions in June 2025, which underscored the seriousness of the case.
In response to Chavan's request to allow his client to appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Borkar directed that the interim protection granted in July 2025 would continue for four weeks. However, he firmly rejected the anticipatory bail application, reiterating the severe nature of the allegations involving sexual harassment and stalking of a woman athlete.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on protecting individuals from harassment in sports environments and highlights the ongoing legal battle in this high-profile case.
