0% found this document useful (0 votes)
127 views7 pages

Rakhi Sawant - Sessions Court - ORDER

Rakhi Sawant applied for anticipatory bail in anticipation of her arrest in a case registered under sections 354(A), 500, 504, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 67(A) of Information and Technology Act. The court denied her anticipatory bail on the grounds that she did not cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over her mobile phone which was an important piece of evidence, and her explanation for not appearing before the investigation officer was not justifiable given the serious allegations. The court found that prima facie offenses were committed and custodial interrogation was necessary.

Uploaded by

NR M
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
127 views7 pages

Rakhi Sawant - Sessions Court - ORDER

Rakhi Sawant applied for anticipatory bail in anticipation of her arrest in a case registered under sections 354(A), 500, 504, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 67(A) of Information and Technology Act. The court denied her anticipatory bail on the grounds that she did not cooperate with the investigation by refusing to hand over her mobile phone which was an important piece of evidence, and her explanation for not appearing before the investigation officer was not justifiable given the serious allegations. The court found that prima facie offenses were committed and custodial interrogation was necessary.

Uploaded by

NR M
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

ABA 

1870/2022                                  ::1::                               ORDER 

MHCC050062352022

 IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS, AT DINDOSHI
(BORIVALI DIVISION), GOREGAON, MUMBAI
               ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1870 OF 2022
(C. R. No. 883/2022)
 (CNR NO.MHCC05­00­2022)

Rakhi Anant Sawant    
Age – 44 years, Occ : Artist, 
An Adult of Indian Inhabitant,  
Residing at : B­2/501, Seranity Complex, 
New Link Road, Oshiwara, Andheri (West), 
Mumbai – 400 058. ...Applicant/Accused 
 
  V/s. 

The State of Maharashtra
(Through Amboli Police Station, Mumbai)         ....Respondent

Ld. Advocate Mr. Sushil Mishra for the Applicant/Accused.
Ld. APP Mr. Sachin Jadhav for The State.
Ld. Advocate Shareen for the Intervener.  

               CORAM: H.H.THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 


              SHRI. SHRIKANT Y. BHOSALE
              (C.R.NO.9)
                   DATE :   18TH JANUARY, 2023
O R D E R

In  anticipation  of  arrest in  C. R. No.883/2022 registered


with Amboli Police Station  for  the offence  punishable  under sections
354(A), 500, 504, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 67(A) of Information
and Technology Act, the applicant has made this application for pre­
ABA 1870/2022                                  ::2::                               ORDER 

arrest bail. 

2. Prosecution vide say Exh. 5 resisted the application. 

3. Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.  for the applicant and Ld. APP Mr.
for The State.

4. The sum and substance of the  case of the  prosecution is


that the informant and the applicant/accused are models and there is
rivalry between them.  In past also there were several complaints filed
against each other.  On this background, the informant alleges that on
31.10.2022, the applicant before the media showed some videos of the
informant and made defamatory statement.  According to the informant
the   video   of   the   informant   displayed   before   media   were   sexually
explicit.

5. Ld.  Adv   for   the   applicant  vehemently  submit  that   except


section 67 of I.T. Act, all other sections are bailable.  According to him
section 67(A) is applicable only when the sexually explicit material is
published or transmitted or caused to be published or transmitted in the
electronic   form.     According   to   him   there   is   no   allegation   that   the
applicant   has   either   published   or   transmitted   the   said   material.
According to him the videos allegedly displayed by the applicant are
available on net, therefore, the custody of the  applicant is not at all
necessary   for   the   purpose   of   investigation.     According   to   him   the
applicant   is   ready   to   handover   the   mobile   phone   to   the   police.     He
further pointed out regarding the incidence the applicant has also filed
counter   case   C.   R.   No.   1518/2022   for   the   offence   punishable   under
sections 500, 504, 506 and 509 of The IPC to Versova police station.
Considering   these   aspects   he   submits   that   this   is   a   fit   case   where
anticipatory bail can be granted.  Ld. Adv for the applicant relied on the
ABA 1870/2022                                  ::3::                               ORDER 

decision between Pramod Anand Dhumal V/s. State of Maharashtra,
in   Anticipatory   Bail   Application   No.   1114   of   2020,   decided   on
07.01.2021 by The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, specially para 9 and
10.    

6. As against this Ld. APP submits that the videos displayed by
the  applicant before  the  media  needs to be  verified and  that can be
done only if those videos are seen and that is possible only by verifying
the device which was used by the applicant at relevant time.  According
to prosecution the notice under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. was served on
the applicant on 10.11.2022, but there was no positive response from
the   applicant.     Though   she   appeared   before   investigation   officer   on
14.11.2022, she did not handover her mobile phone.  Thus, unless the
applicant   has   been   arrested,   proper   investigation   is   not   possible   and
hence, the bail application needs to be rejected.  

7. Ld. Adv Shareen for the intervenor submits that the videos
which were shown before the media and the media transmitted the said
where   sexually   explicit   material.     The   investigation   officer   has   to
ascertain that which videos were displayed and how many such videos
are   available.     At   the   same   time   the   device   which   was   used   by   the
applicant to display the videos is also an important piece of evidence. In
such circumstances, not only the recovery of the device but custodial
interrogation is absolutely necessary and therefore, it is just and proper
to reject the application.

8. First   I   would   like   to   mention   that   except   offence   under


section  67(A) of Information  and Technology Act, other  offences are
bailable.  To attract section 67(A) of I.T. Act, it is necessary that there
should   be   an   allegation   that   sexually   explicit   material   is   either
ABA 1870/2022                                  ::4::                               ORDER 

published or transmitted or caused to be published or transmitted in
electronic   form.     The   informant   has   alleged   that   the   applicant   on
31.10.2022   played   videos   on   her   mobile   phone   containing   obscene
picture and videos of the informant.   This allegation of showing porn
video before the media prima facie attract section 67(A) of Information
and Technology Act.  Thus, prima facie material is available against the
applicant.

9. In case between Pramod Anand Dhumal V/s. The State of
Maharashtra,   in   Anticipatory   Bail   Application   No.   1114   of   2020,
decided on 7th  January, 2021, by The Hon'ble Bombay High Court,
considering   the   facts   of   that   case   held   that   Section   67   of   The
Information and Technology Act is applicable and not Section 67(A) of
the   I.T.   Act.     Further,   the   anticipatory   bail   was   granted   while
considering the fact that the dispute cell phone was handed over to the
investigating   officer   and   therefore,   custodial   interrogation   held   not
necessary.  However, in the present case inspite of giving opportunity to
the applicant, cell  phone was not handed over nor  the  applicant co­
operated the investigation agencies, therefore, in my view cited decision
is not helpful to the applicant.

10. In light of the above, it is seen that the mobile device which
was allegedly used to display the porn videos and obscene photos of the
informant,   is   an   important   piece   of   evidence   and   that   needs   to   be
recovered.  It is further seen that investigating officer has issued notice
to the applicant under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C.   However, she did not
produce the mobile phone though she appeared before the investigation
officer.   It is further seen that according to prosecution thereafter also
the   applicant   neither   produced   the   mobile   nor   appeared   before   the
investigating officer.  Now Ld. Adv for the applicant is submitting that
ABA 1870/2022                                  ::5::                               ORDER 

the applicant was thereafter busy in one T.V. show, hence, could not
appear   before   the   investigation   officer.     In   light   of   the   serious
allegation, the above explanation of the applicant do not appear to be
justifiable.    It   is   also  argument   of   the   applicant  that   she   is  ready   to
produce her mobile device before the investigating officer.   However,
considering the fact that when the opportunity was with the applicant,
she failed to produce her mobile phone before the investigation officer.
In such circumstances, no question arises to believe on the argument of
the   applicant   that   she   will   produce   the   mobile   device   before
investigation officer.

11. From   the   above   discussion   it   is   seen   that  prima   facie


material is available against the applicant and she is not co­operating
the investigation agency when the  opportunity was given to her.   In
such   circumstances,   the   Court   is   of   the   view   that   no   case   for
anticipatory bail is made out.  Hence, the order.

ORDER

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1870 of 2022 stands rejected and
disposed off.          

(Dictated   and   pronounced   in   presence   of   Ld.   Advocate   for


Applicant & Ld. APP)         
Digitally signed by
Shrikant
Yashwantrao
Bhosale
Date: 2023.01.20
10:54:15 +0530

Date: 18.01.2023                  (Shrikant Y. Bhosale)      


      The Addl. Sessions Judge
        City Civil & Sessions Court, 
                            Borivali Division, Dindoshi.
ABA 1870/2022                                  ::6::                               ORDER 

Dictated on :  18.01.2023
Transcribed on :  18.01.2023
Checked & corrected on  :  19.01.2023
Signed on :  19.01.2023
Sent to Dept. on :  
ABA 1870/2022                                  ::7::                               ORDER 

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”

Date : 20/01/2023                     Ms. Tejal C. Rane
Time : 10.53 A.M.                  (Stenographer Grade­I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME     NAME OF STENOGRAPHER

Name of the Judge (with Court room no.) HHJ S. Y. BHOSALE
(Court Room No.9)
Date of Pronouncement of  18.01.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 19.01.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 20.01.2023

You might also like