Recently, the Bombay High Court declined pre-arrest protection to a man accused of promising a young woman a role in a film and using that assurance to establish a physical relationship, before allegedly making her private photographs and videos viral. The case prompted the Court to closely scrutinise allegations of manipulation, concealment of material facts, and misuse of trust, leading to a significant observation on the gravity of the accusations.
The controversy began when the complainant approached the accused in May 2024 in connection with auditions for a film. According to the prosecution, the accused repeatedly assured her that he would cast her in a movie and, on that assurance, developed a close relationship with her. The FIR alleged that he concealed the fact that he was already married and had a child, while continuing a physical relationship with the complainant. During this period, he allegedly recorded objectionable photographs and videos of her after assuring her they would remain private. The relationship eventually ended, and the complainant was allegedly told that the material had been deleted. However, she later accused him of threatening to release the content and subsequently making it viral on social media, leading to registration of offences under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The accused, seeking anticipatory bail, argued that the relationship was consensual and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Justice Shyam C. Chandak observed that the allegations contained in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case requiring thorough investigation. The Court noted that the complainant had alleged that the applicant had induced her to enter into a physical relationship by assuring her that he would provide her work in a film. At the same time, he allegedly concealed the fact that he was already married and had a 2-year-old daughter. The Court found it significant that, despite the alleged assurances, no such film work was ever offered to the complainant.
The Court further noted that the applicant had taken objectionable photographs and videos of the complainant during the course of their relationship and subsequently made them viral on a social media platform. The Court observed that there appeared to be no legitimate reason for the applicant to record such material and later circulate it publicly. It remarked that the circumstances indicated that the applicant may have harboured an intention from the very beginning to misuse the complainant's photographs and videos.
Emphasising the element of trust involved in the relationship, the Court observed that the applicant had allegedly taken advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the complainant. The Court stated, "Thus, the Applicant misused the trust invested in him by Respondent No.2. 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 also noted that although the applicant had allegedly represented that he had deleted the complainant's photographs and videos, the material on record suggested that the same content was later circulated on a social platform. Considering the nature of the allegations, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of electronic evidence and devices relevant to the investigation. The Court further observed that the offences alleged were serious in nature and that granting anticipatory bail at this stage could adversely affect a fair and effective investigation.
Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Case Title: Abhijit Arun Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Case No.: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1311 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Vipul Dushing, Adv. Krishma Joshi, Adv. Ashish Saxena
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Rashmi S. Tendulkar, Adv. Jatin P. Karia (Shah), PSI Amol Malugare
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
