Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection To Marathi Actor Abhijit Gade In Intimate Video Case

The Bench of Justices AG Masih and Vijay Bishnoi passed the order on June 11, directing that in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 21/2026 registered at Narhe Police Station, Pune, Gade shall be released on bail subject to conditions.

The case arises from allegations made by a 24-year-old aspiring actress who accused Gade of threatening to circulate her intimate photographs and videos following the breakdown of their relationship. The FIR invokes Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as well as Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

While issuing notice, the Supreme Court made the matter returnable on August 3, 2026. The Court also directed issuance of notice to the complainant and waived formal service upon the State of Maharashtra after its counsel accepted notice.

During the hearing, Advocates Ashish Raghuvanshi, C. Ankeeta Appanna (AOR), Madhura Anand Chitnis, Tanmay Kate, and Ishit Mahajan, appeared for the petitioner.

As an interim safeguard, the Bench ordered that if arrested, Gade be released on bail on terms deemed just and reasonable by the investigating officer. The Court further directed that if the petitioner possesses a passport, the same shall be deposited before the competent authority until conclusion of trial or further orders.

The Bench also directed Gade to appear before the investigating officer on June 18 at 10 a.m. and on all future dates as required. It emphasised that he must cooperate fully with the investigation, maintain good conduct, and refrain from influencing witnesses.

Challenge to the Bombay High Court order

Gade approached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court rejected his anticipatory bail application on June 1, 2026. According to the petition, the High Court denied pre-arrest protection primarily on the ground that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of electronic devices and digital evidence.

The petitioner has argued that the High Court failed to consider that all relevant electronic devices, including his mobile phone and laptop, had already been handed over to the investigating officer by his wife on May 18, 2026 pursuant to liberty granted by the High Court. An affidavit of compliance was also placed on record before the High Court, the plea states.

The petition filed through AoR C. Ankeeta Appanna further contends that no custodial interrogation is required because the investigating agency already possesses the devices from which electronic evidence can be extracted.

Allegations in the FIR

According to the FIR, the complainant met Gade during the course of film-related interactions in Pune. The two allegedly developed a close relationship after the petitioner assured her of opportunities in a film project titled Dakshin Digvijay.

The complainant has alleged that she entered into a consensual physical relationship with Gade believing his representations regarding both the film project and his personal circumstances. During the relationship, intimate photographs and videos were allegedly recorded and stored on Gade's mobile phone.

The FIR states that after Gade's wife became aware of the relationship, a meeting took place on January 25, 2026 between the parties and their family members. It is alleged that at that meeting, Gade deleted the intimate photographs and videos from his phone in the presence of his wife and the complainant's aunt.

However, the complainant further alleged that on January 26, 2026, Gade threatened to make the material viral on social media. Subsequently, she was allegedly informed by an acquaintance that intimate content purportedly depicting her was being circulated on WhatsApp.

Based on these allegations, the FIR was registered on April 18, 2026.

Defence: Relationship was Consensual

In his plea before the Supreme Court, Gade has maintained that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the FIR itself acknowledges this fact.

The petition states that he had disclosed from the outset that he was married and had a daughter. It also claims that the complainant voluntarily continued the relationship over an extended period and that there was no deception, coercion or false promise that could attract criminal liability.

Significantly, the petitioner argues that the FIR itself records that the intimate photographs and videos were deleted in the presence of witnesses when the parties decided to part ways.

The plea contends that there is no material establishing that he circulated, published or transmitted any intimate content. It further points to the nearly three-month delay between the alleged threat on January 26 and registration of the FIR on April 18.

According to the petition, the complainant also declined to immediately approach the police despite allegedly learning in March 2026 that certain intimate content was being circulated.

Investigation to Continue

While granting interim protection, the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

The Court has sought responses from the State and the complainant and will consider the matter further on August 3, 2026.