Bombay HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case Where Accused Suppressed Marriage and Made Victim's Videos Viral

The Bombay High Court refused pre-arrest bail to a man accused of rape under Section 69 BNS, finding prima facie that he concealed his marriage and made the victim's intimate videos viral on social media.

The Bombay High Court, sitting as a Vacation Court, on 1 June 2026 rejected the anticipatory bail application of Abhijit Arun Gade, who faces arrest in connection with C.R. No. 21/2026 registered at Narhe Police Station, Pune. The offences alleged are rape under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and violations of Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Justice Shyam C. Chandak, sitting singly, found a prima facie case of rape and held that custodial interrogation was essential to recover electronic evidence. The Sessions Court had already rejected the applicant's anticipatory bail before the matter came before the High Court.

The Allegations Before the Court

According to the FIR, on 12 May 2024, the complainant — Respondent No. 2 — contacted the applicant seeking an audition for the film Dakshin Digvijay. The applicant told her he was looking for a good film story for her and would give her work. This led to a friendship between the two.

In October 2024, the applicant obtained the complainant's consent for a physical relationship by promising her film work. The two continued the relationship on the same pretext. During this period, the applicant took objectionable photographs and videos of the complainant, assuring her he would keep them private as a personal memory.

Throughout this time, the applicant did not disclose that he was married. He later told the complainant he was married with a two-year-old daughter, but claimed his wife was not living with him. When his wife discovered the relationship, quarrels followed. On 25 January 2026, the applicant and the complainant agreed to end contact, and the applicant represented that he had deleted her photographs and videos from his mobile phone.

The following day, 26 January 2026, the applicant sent a WhatsApp message to the complainant threatening to release the photographs and videos on social media if she went elsewhere. On 17 January 2026, according to the FIR, the applicant made the photographs and videos viral on a social platform. The complainant filed the report on 18 April 2026, leading to registration of the crime.

Arguments on Both Sides

Mr. Vipul Dushing, appearing through video conference for the applicant, argued that the FIR itself records that the physical relationship was consensual. He submitted that the applicant had deleted the photographs and videos, which contradicted the allegation that he made them viral. He contended there was no prima facie case of rape or any offence under the IT Act, that material investigation was already complete, and that the applicant was unlikely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

Ms. Rashmi S. Tendulkar, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Mr. Jatin P. Karia (Shah), appointed by the Court as legal aid counsel for Respondent No. 2 who was present in court, countered that the applicant had induced consent by falsely promising film work and by suppressing his married status. They submitted that the applicant subsequently defamed the complainant by making her photographs and videos viral, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation, particularly to recover electronic evidence.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Chandak accepted the prosecution's position on each of the key factual disputes.

On the question of consent, the Court held that the FIR clearly establishes that the applicant was married and had a child, yet suppressed that fact and induced the complainant into a physical relationship on the false pretext of giving her film work — work he never provided. The Court found this sufficient to constitute a prima facie case of rape under Section 69 BNS, which addresses sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means.

On the deletion of photographs and videos, the Court was unpersuaded by the applicant's argument. Justice Chandak observed that the applicant had only made a show of deleting the material, and that the subsequent viral spread of the photographs on a social platform demonstrated that the deletion was not genuine. The Court went further, finding that the applicant's conduct in taking the objectionable photographs and videos in the first place indicated that, from the outset, he had the intention to misuse them. The Court recorded that this conduct had “ruined the life of Respondent No.2.”

On the need for custodial interrogation, the Court held that the applicant's arrest and custody were essential to collect important electronic evidence and to recover the device or devices containing the material. The Court found that granting anticipatory bail would adversely affect a fair and effective investigation in a serious case.

Outcome

Justice Chandak rejected Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1311 of 2026, holding that the applicant was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The application was dismissed on 1 June 2026.