Court rejects actor's bail plea in rape case
The MHB Colony police arrested Roy on August 23 after receiving a complaint from the lady claiming that he allegedly raped and cheated her.
Mumbai: A sessions court in Dindoshi has rejected the bail application filed by Bollywood actor Saurabh Roy in connection with the case of rape registered against him by a model.
Though Roy has claimed that he has married the complainant in May 2018, and no case of rape is made out but the complainant claimed that the marriage was “fraud” by the accused and no marriage in accordance with Vedic rituals has been performed. She also claimed that neither rituals of offering mangalsutra nor Kanyadan was performed.
The MHB Colony police arrested Roy on August 23 after receiving a complaint from the lady claiming that he allegedly raped and cheated her. According to the complaint, in September 2016 the duo met each other in Delhi during a programme of Fashion Week. Later, they kept on meeting each other and fell in love and on June 25, 2017 betrothal ceremony was also solemnized in Greater Noida.
On May 2, 2018, the marriage took place in Vishveshwar Temple at Khar in Mumbai. However, it is alleged in FIR that the process of marriage registration was not completed and on May 9, Roy allegedly forced her to withdraw the application for registration of marriage on the pretext that a big marriage would be solemnized in October 2018. A few days later he dropped her to her parents’ house. Later, he allegedly told her that the marriage is cancelled and she was no more his wife.
She has also alleged that the documents of marriage have been destroyed at the instance of the applicant.
While Roy’s lawyer argued before the court that he has married the complainant but she sent him WhatsApp messages regarding filing of petition for divorce by mutual consent.
Public prosecutor R.C. Savle opposed the application. After hearing arguments sessions judge C.P. Gaddam rejected the bail application observing that, “Since the investigation is in progress I am of the opinion that if the applicant is released at this stage the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out.”