Bombay high court refuses pre-arrest bail to man who promised film role and ‘physically exploited’ woman

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has refused pre-arrest bail to a 26-year-old man who allegedly physically exploited a 24-year-old woman by promising her a role in a film and later circulated her objectionable photographs and videos on social media.“Therefore, it appears that, since 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 respondent. Said act of the applicant has ruined the life of the respondent. Therefore, there is a prima facie case of the offence of rape,’’ said Justice Shyam Chandak on Monday.The man moved the vacation court apprehending arrest by a police station in Pune. The sessions court on May 8 rejected his anticipatory bail application.According to the FIR, on May 12, 2024, when the woman met him for a film’s audition, he said he would directly cast her. After 15 days, he said he was searching for a good film story for her. They became friends and since October 2024 had physical relations. He took her photographs and videos promising “to keep it with him for memory.”Initially he did not reveal he was married. After his wife came to know about them, on January 25, 2026, they decided not to meet. On January 26, he sent a message threatening that “if she goes somewhere for romping, he will drop the said photos and videos on social media.” She blocked his number. On April 17, she learnt he made them viral.The man’s advocate, Vipul Dushing, said the FIR mentions physical relations between them were consensual and the photos/videos were deleted from his phone. As such, there is no offence of rape and under the Information Technology Act and his custody is not required.Justice Chandak said the applicant suppressed the fact of his marriage and child and “caused the respondent to develop physical relationship with him on the false pretext of giving her work in a film.” He has “only made a show that he has deleted the subject photos/videos.” Therefore, his custodial interrogation is essential to collect important electronic evidence. “The grant of anticipatory bail will adversely affect fair and effective investigation in this case,” the judge concluded.