Consent obtained under coercion or threat is invalid, particularly in sexual exploitation cases, necessitating thorough investigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has sought anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 174/2025 of Police Station Nabi Karim for offence under Sections 376/323/313/354C/506 IPC.

2. The FIR was registered on the complaint of prosecutrix, explaining the circumstances as follows. The petitioner is a film director based in Mumbai and he allegedly blackmailed and raped the prosecutrix and also forced her to undergone multiple abortions. The prosecutrix came in contact with the petitioner through social media platform Tik Tok and Instagram in the year 2020 and they exchanged their mobile phone numbers. At that time, the prosecutrix was residing in Jhansi. On 17.06.2021, the petitioner called her up to inform that he had reached Jhansi Railway Station to meet her, but she refused to see him, expressing societal pressures. On this, the petitioner stated that if she did not meet him, he would commit suicide by jumping before a running train, after which her entire family would go to jail. The prosecutrix got scared and met the petitioner at the Railway Station. Thereafter, on 18.06.2021, the petitioner called her up and again asked her to come to the Railway Station, otherwise he would commit suicide, so she again went to meet him. From Railway Station, the petitioner took her in TSR to a Resort and assured her that they could talk in the room in peace. After they finished their meals, the petitioner started getting dizzy and by about midnight on regaining consciousness, she found herself lying naked, so started crying. On this, the petitioner told her that he had clicked her obscene photographs and videos, which he would make public if she objected. At the same time, the petitioner also said to her that he loved her and would commit suicide if he did not get her. On 19.06.2021, the petitioner went to Lucknow and they stayed in communication with each other through phone. On 10.07.2021, the petitioner again visited Jhansi and called the prosecutrix to Orcha where he again established physical relations with her in a hotel. Even thereafter, the petitioner on several dates established physical relations with the prosecutrix after calling her at different places by alluring her with a launch as a heroine in a movie named Gajnavi. Being allured to be made a film heroine, the prosecutrix reached Mumbai and started living with the petitioner, who continued exploiting her physically. During that period, the petitioner also physically assaulted the prosecutrix on different dates and at different places, specifically described in the FIR. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also forced the prosecutrix to undergo abortions thrice and finally abandoned her in the month of February, 2025 after threatening to defame her with her obscene photographs and videos which had been recorded by him. As per the FIR, the petitioner also told the prosecturix that he had exploited many girls and he would kill her if she further raised the issue.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix only out of professional rivalry and otherwise she established sexual relations with the petitioner with consent. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the prosecutrix herself submitted an affidavit before the Court of Sessions testifying that she had lodged the FIR under some misunderstanding and has no objection if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, learned prosecutor strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that custodial interrogation of petitioner is required in order to track down the records of multiple abortions got done on the prosecutrix and also to recover the obscene pictures and videos of the prosecutrix, taken by the petitioner. Learned prosecutor also points out that even if the subsequent acts are treated as consensual sex, at least the initial act of sexual assault on the prosecutrix was clearly an offence of rape after the petitioner administered some intoxicant in