The Bombay High Court has rejected an anticipatory bail plea from a man accused of raping a woman after obtaining her consent under the false promise of securing her work in a film.
In a ruling passed on June 1, a vacation bench of Justice Shyam C Chandak observed that granting pre-arrest bail to the accused would “adversely affect fair and effective investigation.” The court noted that the man’s actions had “ruined her life” and emphasized that his custodial interrogation is crucial to retrieving vital electronic evidence.
Background of the Case
The case, registered by the Pune Police, charges the applicant under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which addresses sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, along with relevant provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
According to the prosecution, the complainant first contacted the applicant two years ago regarding an audition. A friendship developed between them after the man promised to find a high-quality film story for her.
Later that year, the applicant allegedly used the promise of film opportunities to obtain her consent for a physical relationship. The physical relations continued under this ongoing promise. During their time together, the applicant took objectionable photos and videos of the woman, falsely assuring her that the sensitive material would never be made public. Furthermore, the applicant actively concealed his personal life, failing to disclose that he was married with a minor daughter.
From Broken Trust to Blackmail
The relationship took a turn when the applicant’s wife discovered the affair. Following this, the complainant and the applicant mutually agreed to stop meeting, and the man claimed to have deleted all the intimate photos and videos.
However, the prosecution revealed that the deletion was merely a pretense. A few days later, the applicant allegedly sent a threatening message to the victim via WhatsApp, warning her that “if she goes somewhere for romping,” he would post the intimate files on social media. He subsequently made the sensitive photos and videos viral online.
Court’s Observations on Deceit and Evidence
Refusing to grant relief, Justice Chandak observed that the applicant had no legitimate reason to capture and distribute the victim’s private photos and videos.
“Therefore, it appears that, since the 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 complainant,” Justice Chandak stated, concluding that a prima facie case of rape was established.
The High Court also pointed out that the accused had “only made a show” of deleting the media before leaking it. Because the digital files were shared widely online, the court ruled that custodial interrogation is strictly necessary for law enforcement to track down and secure the critical electronic evidence.
