Pornography Racket Case: Gehana Vasisth's Anticipatory Bail Application Rejected By Mumbai Sessions Court

Additional Sessions Judge Sonali Agarwal noted that Vasisth's was not a fit case to grant protection.

The police alleged that Vasisth directed obscene films, and lured and coerced women to act in such videos.

On July 27, the Crime Branch booked her under sections 354C (outraging modesty of a woman), 292, 293 (sale of obscene material) under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 66E, 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) under the Information Technology Act and provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.

Vasisth sought anticipatory bail on several grounds;  it may be noted that this is the third case against her.

Vasisth claimed that the Police booked her in the case as she supported co-accused Raj Kundra. She also alleged that the police demanded money not to arrest her. She further contended that she had not forced anyone to act in the alleged obscene videos. Moreover, the complaint was filed a year after her contract with Kundra.

Vasisth argued that she was already in judicial custody for over four months, giving the police enough time to investigate her.

The property cell of the Crime Branch argued through their counsel that the Vasisth may threaten witnesses if she is released on bail or then lure them to destroy any form of evidence.

They further argued that other people may also be involved along with Vasisth and that she made huge profits from directing such obscene videos.