Mumbai, June 2: The Bombay High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a man accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the false promise of helping her secure work in films and later circulating her objectionable photographs and videos on social media.
Justice Shyam Chandak, while rejecting the man's plea for pre-arrest bail on Monday, observed that he had “misused the trust” reposed in him by the woman and that there was a prima facie case of rape against him.
“The Applicant misused the trust invested in him by Respondent No. 2 (woman). Said act of the Applicant has ruined the life of Respondent No. 2. Therefore, there is a prima facie case of the offence of rape,” the court said.
Allegations linked to promise of film work
According to the prosecution, the woman approached the accused in May 2024 for an audition for a film titled Dakshin Digvijay. Her uncle had come across a poster calling for auditions with the name and number of the applicant and forwarded it to her.
The accused allegedly told her that he was searching for a suitable story and promised to give her work in a movie.
Their friendship gradually developed and, in October 2024, he allegedly persuaded her to enter into a physical relationship by assuring her that he would help her get a role in a film.
The woman alleged that during this period, the accused took objectionable photographs and videos of her, assuring her that they would remain private.
She further claimed that he never disclosed that he was married and had a child. She learnt about his marital status only later.
Relationship ended amid threats, says prosecution
The prosecution said that after the accused’s wife discovered the relationship, disputes arose between them.
The woman and the accused subsequently decided to end their relationship in January 2026. However, the accused allegedly threatened to circulate her photographs and videos and later made them viral on social media.
An FIR was registered at Narhe Police Station in Pune under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act and Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The accused argued that the relationship was consensual and claimed he had deleted the photographs and videos from his phone.
He also contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Court cites need for custodial interrogation
Rejecting the submissions, the court noted that the accused had concealed his marriage and never fulfilled his promise of helping the woman secure film work.
“The Applicant had no reason to take the objectionable photos and videos of Respondent No. 2 and make it viral,” the court observed.
Also Watch:
The court further held that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover electronic evidence and devices used in the alleged offence, adding that granting anticipatory bail could adversely affect the investigation.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
