The Bombay High Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail to a Pune-based man accused in a case involving allegations of obtaining consent for a physical relationship on the promise of providing work in films and later allegedly circulating private photographs and videos of the complainant.
Justice Shyam C. Chandak passed the order on June 1, 2026, observing that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of electronic evidence and a proper investigation into the allegations.
Background of the Case
The anticipatory bail application was filed by Abhijit Arun Gade in connection with a case registered at Narhe Police Station, Pune, under provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, the complainant first came into contact with the applicant in May 2024 during discussions related to an audition for a film. The FIR alleges that a friendship subsequently developed between them and that the applicant repeatedly assured her that he would provide opportunities in the film industry.
The complainant alleged that private photographs and videos were taken during their relationship. She further claimed that despite assurances that the material would remain confidential, it was later used to threaten her and was eventually circulated on social media. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the applicant's request for anticipatory bail.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case warranting custodial interrogation. It was also submitted that the complainant's own version indicated that the material had been deleted and that the applicant was unlikely to abscond or interfere with the investigation.
The prosecution and the complainant's counsel opposed the plea. They contended that the applicant had induced the complainant into the relationship through false assurances of film work and had concealed the fact that he was married. They further argued that electronic evidence still needed to be recovered and examined.
After examining the FIR and submissions, the Court noted that the allegations indicated the applicant had allegedly suppressed his marital status and continued making promises of film opportunities that were never fulfilled.
“The FIR clearly mentions that the Applicant was married and having a child. Yet, he suppressed that fact and caused Respondent No.2 to develop physical relationship with him on the false pretext of giving her work in a film,” the Court observed.
The bench also took note of the allegations relating to private photographs and videos. The Court observed that there was no apparent reason for taking such material and allegedly making it public, adding that the allegations suggested a misuse of the complainant's trust.
Justice Chandak held that custodial interrogation was essential for collecting electronic evidence and identifying the devices allegedly used in the offence.
“The offence is serious in nature. The grant of anticipatory bail will adversely affect fair and effective investigation in this case,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhijit Arun Gade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1311 of 2026
Judge: Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Decision Date: June 1, 2026
