"The relief of anticipatory bail is within the discretion of the Court and the Court has to grant or to refuse the said relief considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Having discussed the allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is not a fit case to grant relief of anticipatory bail," the judge recorded in his January 8 order.

Durrani's accusation is centered on Sawant allegedly breaching his right to privacy by disseminating explicit videos featuring him.

Consequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, invoking Sections 500 (defamation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 67A (publishing sexually explicit material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.

Subsequently, Sawant, represented by advocate Ali Kaashif Khan, sought anticipatory bail from a Mumbai court. Her argument revolved around the claim that the videos were recorded by Durrani on his own device, a fact allegedly not disclosed to the police. However, the prosecution opposed Sawant's plea, asserting that they were still in the process of probing the origin of the video publications. The police further highlighted the existence of another co-accused in the case, emphasizing the need for an investigation into their involvement.

The court had initially provided Sawant with interim protection from arrest on November 29 of the previous year. Following the rejection of Sawant's bail application, the court extended this interim protection until January 11, 2024, allowing Sawant time to appeal to the High Court.

Case Title: Rakhi Sawant v. State