The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by actress Gehana Vasisth in relation to the porn film case..Businessman Raj Kundra is also an accused in another FIR in the porn film case..Vasisth moved the anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in the FIR registered under Sections 354C (outraging modesty of woman), 292 and 293 (sale of obscene material) of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66E, 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act; and provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act..Justice Sandeep K Shinde pronounced the verdict today after reserving the matter for orders on September 1, 2021. .The case was filed after the police received a complaint stating that Vasisth, who was allegedly the director of porn films, threatened, coerced and lured women with money to act in “obscene film videos”.The complainant had claimed that she was coerced to act in obscene videos for Vasisth's films, which were uploaded on mobile application NewFlix..Advocate Abhishek Yende, appearing for Vasisth, told the High Court that the complainant had previously acted in several web series.He further submitted that whatever could have been recovered from Vasisth had already been recovered from her when she was in custody.He added that the FIR had been registered against her while she was in already in custody..The Court asked the Mumbai Police to explain why Vasisth's custody was required in the present case. Subsequently the Court also sought to know why Section 370 (offence of trafficking) of the Indian Penal Code was not invoked..In response, Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde had submitted on Tuesday that they did not require Vasisth's custody as they only required certain contracts signed with companies and various artistes.However, the very next day, the public prosecutor informed the Court that they had filed an application in the lower court seeking to add an additional offence of trafficking (Section 370) under the Indian Penal Code in the third FIR..Yende subsequently contended that Section 370 ought not have been added as the complainant in the present FIR had purportedly given her no-objection to act in the web-series which was recorded after she had signed agreements with Vasisth.She had also promoted the series in the media, Yende argued..[Read order]
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by actress Gehana Vasisth in relation to the porn film case..Businessman Raj Kundra is also an accused in another FIR in the porn film case..Vasisth moved the anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in the FIR registered under Sections 354C (outraging modesty of woman), 292 and 293 (sale of obscene material) of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66E, 67, 67A (transmission of sexually explicit material) of the Information Technology Act; and provisions of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act..Justice Sandeep K Shinde pronounced the verdict today after reserving the matter for orders on September 1, 2021. .The case was filed after the police received a complaint stating that Vasisth, who was allegedly the director of porn films, threatened, coerced and lured women with money to act in “obscene film videos”.The complainant had claimed that she was coerced to act in obscene videos for Vasisth's films, which were uploaded on mobile application NewFlix..Advocate Abhishek Yende, appearing for Vasisth, told the High Court that the complainant had previously acted in several web series.He further submitted that whatever could have been recovered from Vasisth had already been recovered from her when she was in custody.He added that the FIR had been registered against her while she was in already in custody..The Court asked the Mumbai Police to explain why Vasisth's custody was required in the present case. Subsequently the Court also sought to know why Section 370 (offence of trafficking) of the Indian Penal Code was not invoked..In response, Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde had submitted on Tuesday that they did not require Vasisth's custody as they only required certain contracts signed with companies and various artistes.However, the very next day, the public prosecutor informed the Court that they had filed an application in the lower court seeking to add an additional offence of trafficking (Section 370) under the Indian Penal Code in the third FIR..Yende subsequently contended that Section 370 ought not have been added as the complainant in the present FIR had purportedly given her no-objection to act in the web-series which was recorded after she had signed agreements with Vasisth.She had also promoted the series in the media, Yende argued..[Read order]
