In the ongoing Karan Oberoi rape case, a Mumbai sessions court has rejected a plea to quash legal proceedings against actor and activist Pooja Bedi and seven others. The accused are facing charges for allegedly revealing the identity of a woman who had filed a rape complaint against Oberoi. The alleged disclosure occurred during a press conference held shortly after Oberoi’s arrest.
Mumbai Sessions Court's ruling
As per a News 18 report, in its ruling, the court stated that prima facie evidence indicates the involvement of the accused in the alleged offense. It further observed that there are insufficient grounds to dismiss the charges at this preliminary stage. The case pertains to a potential violation of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits the disclosure of a rape survivor’s identity.
Legal action against Pooja Bedi, Anveshi Jain, Chaitanya Bhosle, Varkay Patani, Sherrin Verghese, actor Sudhanshu Pandey, and advocate Dinesh Tiwari was initiated by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri.
As per several reports, after the complainant filed the rape case against Karan Oberoi, a press conference was held at Pooja Bedi’s residence, during which her identity was allegedly revealed. She subsequently filed a formal complaint in June 2019 before the Andheri Magistrate Court.
During the investigation, police confirmed that the press conference took place on May 5, 2019, and members of the group allegedly disclosed the complainant’s name and other sensitive personal information, News 18 reported.
The police further noted that video footage from the press event was widely shared on various digital platforms and remains publicly accessible. Based on these findings, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, on February 26, 2021, ordered the initiation of legal proceedings under Section 228A IPC, the same publication quoted.
Complainant's statement
In April 2022, the accused allegedly approached the sessions court seeking to challenge the Magistrate Court’s order. They argued that there was no common intention or criminal intent (mens rea) behind the alleged disclosure. Some petitioners claimed they neither took the complainant’s name nor shared any identifiable information.
However, the complainant contested these claims, stating that the disclosure during the press conference led to social stigma, harassment, and defamation. She also alleged that her identity was circulated widely on social media platforms like YouTube, causing significant emotional distress.
After evaluating all aspects, a Free Press Journal report quoted, that the sessions court noted that even if only one or a few individuals revealed the complainant's identity, the entire group could still be held accountable due to the complainant’s allegation of shared intent. The court emphasized that defenses such as the lack of mens rea or the general nature of allegations are issues to be addressed during the trial phase.