Rocky Singh @ Ravi Rajan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2022ABA/274/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the single judge rejected the plea for the primary applicant, an actor accused of filming a coerced nude scene and allegedly assaulting the victim. The court held that the applicant was deeply involved and custodial interrogation was necessary, refusing bail. However, the court directed the investigating agency to inform the second applicant of any intent to ar

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for Applicant No. 1; Applicant No. 2 granted notice privilege before arrest; application disposed of.

Rocky Singh @ Ravi Rajan Kumar and Anr. Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2022

¶4

Mr. Rocky Singh @ Ravi Rajan Kumar & Anr..... Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Makarand Panchakshari for Applicants.
Smt. A. A. Takalkar, APP for State/Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 3rd FEBRUARY 2022
(through Video Conferencing)

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1.At the outset, learned APP makes a statement, on

¶9

instructions that, at this stage, the investigating agency does not
want to arrest the Applicant No.2. But if in future they required

¶10

custody of the applicant No.2, they will give four clear working

¶11

days notice to the applicant No.2 to enable her to approach the
sessions court. The statement is recorded and accepted. Therefore,
I have specifically heard this matter for consideration of grant of
relief or otherwise to the applicant No.1.

¶12

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2022.02.04 12:12:49 +0530

¶13

2.The Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in

¶14

Gokhale

¶15

2 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶16

connection with C.R.No. I-112 of 2021 registered at Malvani Police
Station, on 08/02/2021, under sections 292, 293 and 420 r/w. 34
of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), under sections 67 and
67A of the Information Technology Act, as well as, under sections
3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, 1986. Subsequently Section 376 of IPC is also
added after the victim had given her supplementary statement.
The investigation is being carried out by DCB CID Crime branch.

¶17

3.Heard Shri. Makarand Panchakshari, learned counsel
for the applicants and Smt. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶18

4.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is
lodged by the victim herself. She has given her background as to
how she started her career in modelling. In November 2020, she
had shot for a Web series. In December 2020 she had started
residing at Navi Mumbai.

¶19

5.On 29/12/2020, one Santosh contacted her and asked
her whether she was interested in working in Web series. The
shooting was to take place in Lonavala. She was offered
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30000/- for one day’s shoot. He also told her

¶20

3 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶21

that, one Alisha would call her. After some time, that Alisha called
the informant. She told the informant that shooting was at
Lonavala and the Web series would be available only on paid
application. That web series could not be shared or down loaded
unless payment was made. She told the informant that there was
urgency and shooting was to take place at Lonavala and they had
to leave in the evening. The informant was called at Malad. In the
evening the informant reached there. Alisha told the informant
that other actors were to reach there, but since they were busy, the
shooting was getting late. Alisha took the informant to her flat.
She was residing with her husband and two years old child. There
were servants in the house. Since it was late in the night, the
informant stayed with Alisha.

¶22

6.On the next day i.e. on 30/12/2020, Alisha told the
informant that, shooting at Lonavala was cancelled and that
shooting would then take place at Madh, Malvani, Malad (W). She
prepared an agreement and told the informant to sign that
agreement. Thereafter, the informant, Alisha, her husband, one
Cameraman Monu and servant Suraj Sharma went to a bungalow

¶23

4 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶24

at Madh. There both the applicants were present. First scene was
shot between the informant and the applicant No.2. The recording
was made by Alisha’s husband and one Monu. Alisha told the
informant that the informant would have to give nude shots and
would have to act in nude scenes. The informant refused. On her
refusal, Alisha demanded Rs.10 lakhs and threatened to make the
complaint. The informant got scared and started crying. At that
time, Alisha’s husband and one Sonu told her that, she had to do
those scenes. Alisha gave her one energy drink. But after
consuming it the informant felt giddiness. In that situation, some
nude scenes were shot. After shooting, she slept in Alisha’s house.

¶25

7.On 31/12/2020, in the morning, she went back to her

¶26

house. She asked for her money from Alisha. Rs.30000/- were
transferred by Alisha as suggested by the informant.

¶27

8.On 28/01/2021, the informant’s friend sent her a
message and told her that in a link shared by him, the informant’s
nude scene was being widely circulated. He also sent some screen
shots from that scene. The informant started getting the
information from many others. The informant contacted Alisha on

¶28

5 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶29

01/02/2021. Alisha blamed the informant herself and stopped
responding. On 04/02/2021 the informant consulted this issue
with her advocate. The informant down-loaded that link and saw
the video which contained a video which was shot at the bungalow
at Madh. She realized that she was cheated and she would be in
serious trouble. Therefore, she lodged this F.I.R. on 08/02/2021.

¶30

9.Learned counsel for the applicant No.1 submitted that
the applicant No.1 himself was a victim. He had nothing to do with
the plan of shooting nude video. He was also a paid actor and,
therefore, nothing can be attributed to him. There is a delay in
lodging the F.I.R. and it is lodged as an afterthought. The F.I.R. is
lodged after consultation with the advocate and, therefore, no
offence is made out.

¶31

10.Learned APP opposed this application. She produced
supplementary statement of the informant before me. The
supplementary statement was recorded on 29/09/2021 wherein
she has elaborated on that particular incident. She has stated that,
when she was almost unconscious, the applicant No.1 committed
sexual intercourse with her. It was a part of shooting and that

¶32

6 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶33

shooting was published on an application and was made available.
After recording this statement, Section 376 of IPC is made out.

¶34

11.I have considered these submissions. I am unable to
agree with the submissions that the applicant No.1 was innocent
and was not aware of the plan against the informant. He had
actively participated in the shooting. It cannot be said that, he was
not aware that the informant would be made to give nude shots.
He had participated in the scene, as well. Therefore, this
submission that the applicant is innocent is out-rightly rejected.

¶35

12.So far as delay in lodging of F.I.R. is concerned, in such
matters such delay is understandable and there is nothing wrong
in taking legal assistance before lodging the F.I.R. The informant
was given intoxicant drink and in that situation she was exploited
by these persons. The video was available and was produced in the
investigation. There is sufficient material to show that, it is a very
serious offence. The applicant No.1 is deeply involved. No case for
grant of anticipatory bail order to him is made out. Custodial
interrogation of the applicant No.1 is absolutely necessary.

¶36

13.Hence, the following order :

¶37

7 / 710-aba-274-22(f)

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i)The application on behalf of the applicant No.1
is rejected.

¶40

(ii) The Investigating agency, as per their own statement, shall give four clear working days notice to the Applicant No.2, if they want to arrest the Applicant No.2 in connection with C.R.No. I-112 of 2021 registered at Malvani Police Station, to enable her to approach the appropriate court for appropriate relief.

¶41

(iii)With this direction the application is disposed of.

¶42

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Rocky Singh @ Ravi Rajan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rocky Singh @ Ravi Rajan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abbas Nasrunnah Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Pmc Bank) through Its a. K. Dixit Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Jeehad Jaffer Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Piyush Parag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal Vs State of Maharashtra

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma Vs State of Maharashtra