Karan Oberoi Case: Mumbai Sessions Court Refuses To Quash Charges Against Pooja Bedi, 7 Others For Allegedly Revealing Rape Complainant’s Identity

Mumbai: The sessions court has refused to stop proceedings initiated against Pooja Bedi and seven other celebrities for disclosing the identity of a woman who lodged a rape complaint against actor Karan Oberoi in 2019, following his arrest during a press conference. The sessions court stated that, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence against them at this stage.

The Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri had initiated proceedings against Bedi, actress Anveshi Jain, Chaitanya Bhosle, Varkay Patani, Gurbani Oberoi, Sherrin Verghase, Sudhanshu Pandey, and Dinesh Tiwari, based on the complaint of a woman, an astrologer, who filed the rape complaint against Karan Oberoi in 2019.

The complainant alleged that shortly after lodging the complaint against Karan, the group held a press conference at Bedi's residence, during which her identity was disclosed, causing significant hardship. Consequently, she filed a complaint against them at the Magistrate Court in Andheri in June 2019.

Initially, the Magistrate Court directed the police to investigate the allegations made by the complainant and submit a report. In its findings, the police stated that the group conducted the press conference at Bedi's house on May 5, 2019, during which they disclosed the victim’s name and other personal details.

The police further mentioned that the video of the conference was widely circulated across various platforms and is still available online. Based on the police report, the Magistrate Court initiated proceedings against the group on February 26, 2021, to prosecute them for disclosing the identity of a sexual offense victim.

In April 2022, the group moved the sessions court to challenge the Magistrate Court's order, arguing that there was no common intention or mens rea behind the act. Some claimed that not everyone in the group explicitly took her name or disclosed her identity.

The complainant countered this by asserting that she faced social stigma and harassment as a result of her identity being disclosed during the press conference. She claimed that the disclosure, made in furtherance of a common intention, was circulated on YouTube, social media, and various articles, leading to her defamation. Additionally, she alleged that the group’s actions allowed people to trace her residence and contact her, causing considerable trouble.

After reviewing all aspects, including the press conference video, the sessions court observed, “Even if one or more individuals took the name of the victim involved in the rape case, all will be held liable as per the complainant’s allegations of common intention among the applicants to commit the offense. The applicants’ argument that there was no mens rea to disclose the identity of the victim and the allegations are general are defenses that can be addressed during the trial.”

The court refused to quash the proceedings against the group, stating, “There is sufficient material against the group to suggest that, in furtherance of common intention, they disclosed the identity of the victim/complainant in connection with a sexual offense, violating Section 228A IPC (disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offenses), which prohibits the publication or disclosure of the identity of a victim of a sexual offense.”

news