Would Send Wrong Signals To Society: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Film Director Accused Of Rape, Clicking Obscene Pics

Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked “This is not a case of regular bail sought by the petitioner after his arrest. This is a case of anticipatory bail, sought by a film director, who allegedly committed repeated acts of sexual exploitation against a small town girl who aspired to be film heroine. Granting anticipatory bail in such cases would also send very wrong signals across the society, portraying that after exploiting such girls, a person with hands in pocket can go scot free.”

The Court was not satisfied with the non objection of prosecutrix for grant of bail was voluntary considering the specific details in the FIR of various dates and places where the prosecutrix was raped.

It observed “Just because now, the prosecutrix does not object to grant of anticipatory bail, the present petition cannot be allowed. As mentioned above, the petitioner allegedly clicked obscene videos and photographs of the prosecutrix and threatened to make the same public if she did not cooperate. Under these circumstances, I am not satisfied that consent given by the prosecutrix to grant anticipatory bail is a voluntary act of hers.”

The prosecution' case is that the petitioner, a film director based in Mumbai, came in contact with the prosecutrix who was residing in Jhansi through Tik Tok and Instagram. Subsequently, the petitioner called the prosecutrix and told her that he was in Jhansi and asked her to meet him. When she refused expressing societal pressures, he threatened to commit suicide. As she got scared, she met him and he then took her to a resort.

After they finished their meals, the prosecutrix started getting dizzy and by about midnight on regaining consciousness, she found herself lying naked. The petitioner told her that he had clicked her obscene photographs and videos, which he would make public if she objected. Thereafter, the petitioner on several occasions established physical relations with the prosecutrix after calling her at different places by alluring her with a launch as a heroine in a movie.

Being allured to be made a film heroine, the prosecutrix reached Mumbai and started living with the petitioner, where it is alleged that she was physically assaulted. Further, he forced her to undergo three abortions and then abandoned her. The petitioner also told the prosecturix that he had exploited many girls and he would kill her if she further raised the issue.

The petitioner was booked under Sections 376/323/313/354C/506 IPC.

The Court noted that the prosecutrix during the court hearing said that she did not have any objection if the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.

However, pursuing the FIR, the Court was of the view that the allegations did not appear to be false based on specific details in the FIR.

Finding no circumstances for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court dismissed the application.

Case title: SANOJ KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 387