Actor Rakhi Sawant on Tuesday withdrew her plea seeking pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered against her by her estranged husband Adil Durrani, after the Bombay High Court said it was not inclined to grant the same. Durrani had filed a complaint alleging that Sawant had circulated his private, sexually explicit videos on media channels.
Justice Sarang Kotwal said that he was not inclined to grant the relief and asked Sawant’s advocates whether he wanted to withdraw the same. Sawant’s Advocate Asghar Khan submitted that the actor was a victim of circumstances and the FIR against her is a counter-blast to the FIR registered by her against Durrani.
Sawant had approached the HC after her plea was rejected by the sessions court at Dindoshi in the ground that she had not handed over her phone to the prosecution for them to take the investigation forward.
Sawant and Durrani married last year but the marriage did not sustain for long as there were several differences between them. He was making remarks against her and in her defence she showed this video. Her advocate said that the video was taken five years ago was of poor quality and nothing could be seen clearly as it was blurred.
He informed the court that she had joined the investigation multiple times. He, however, said that the investigating officer did not demand any device from her.
Khan said that Sawant suffers from various illnesses and might have to undergo an operation on the doctor's advice. He said that she was ready to cooperate and urged that her custodial interrogation was not required.
State prosecutor opposed the plea contending that when she was asked to hand over her phone, she refused saying that she is a celebrity, and she would not hand over her phone. The prosecutor said that it was dispute between two parties and hence her custody was required for further investigation.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under Sections 500 (defamation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67A (publishing sexually explicit material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act in the case.
