A Dindoshi sessions court refused to grant anticipatory bail to actress Rakhi Sawant in the case filed by her former husband, Adil Khan Durrani, for allegedly showing sexually explicit material, featuring him, on a TV show and also sharing the links to the videos in WhatsApp groups.
The complaint against Sawant
According to Durrani, Sawant displayed her mobile phone containing sexually explicit material during a TV show aired on August 25. He further said that she showed two videos having runtimes of 29 minutes and 25 seconds and 23 minutes and 22 seconds. On October 18, Durrani lodged a case against her.
Sawant's anticipatory bail plea
In her anticipatory bail plea, Sawant claimed that her ex-husband's character is questionable as he already has several cases registered against him. Though the video was displayed on TV, the contents therein were not visible. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is infringement of law as contemplated under the Information Technology Act, said the plea. As a last resort, Sawant sought that if she is to be booked, Durrani should also be made an accused, averring that the videos were recorded by him.
Contending the claims, the prosecution pointed out that the accused not only displayed her phone containing the objectionable video on the TV show, but also shared them and their links on various WhatsApp group. The prosecution emphasised that Sawant is in habit to engage herself in transmitting sexually explicit material, citing a similar offence filed against her by an actress. It said that her anticipatory bail in that case has been already rejected. Here, Sawant's lawyer clarified that she was granted pre-arrest bail by the Bombay High Court.
Court's observations
After hearing both the sides and pursuing contents of the case, the court observed, “If the allegations and the material allegedly transmitted or published by the applicant is concerned, I have no hesitation to hold that the material is not only obscene but it is sexually explicit as well.” Terming another offence as an antecedent, the court noted that Sawant asserted that she has co-operated with the investigation machinery. However, the investigation officer has objected, saying that the devices used for transmission and storage of the disputed material, needs to be seized and admittedly the said devices are still with the applicant, underlined the court.
