Actress Gehana Vasisth has approached the Bombay High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in the porn film racket case, in which businessman Raj Kundra also stands accused. (Gehana Vashist v. State of Maharashtra)
Vasisth approached the High Court after the Sessions Court refused to grant anticipatory bail in the FIR lodged under Sections 354C (outraging modesty of woman), 292, 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.
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 a mobile application, Hotshot, which was owned by Raj Kundra's company.
Advocate Abhishek Yende, appearing for Vasisth, told the High Court that the complainant had previously acted in several web series.
"In the present case, the web series was shot over a period of 2 months, hence the complainant was very well aware what was being shot, she acted throughout, she accepted payment of ₹10,000 towards the contract signed and she also promoted the series," Yende argued.
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.
She had in fact suffered a heart attack due to low sugar too, he submitted.
At this point, Justice SK Shinde enquired with the prosecution why the issues leading to the third FIR could not be investigated in the prior FIR, when everything had been recovered from Vasisth already.
The Court posted the matter for hearing on August 26, 2021 in order to enable the Public Prosecutor to get appropriate instructions on the query raised.
Vasisth has stated in her application that the Mumbai Police had sought to arrest her in a third FIR while she was already been in custody for 4 months in the previous FIR registered by Crime Branch of the Mumbai Police.
"There is no need of custodial interrogation", Vasisth stated in the application.
She further pointed out that she had been subjected to three different FIRs under the same cause of action within a very short proximity of time and on the basis of the same occurrence.
She added that she was already under stringent bail conditions issued by the Sessions Court which had granted her bail in the earlier FIR.
"Hence the applicant (Vasisth) can be thoroughly investigated without being taken in custody" her application stated.
She further assured that she was ready and willing to co-operate with the investigative agencies as she had been doing so far.