Karan Oberoi Rape Case: Pooja Bedi, 7 Others Accused Of Disclosing Survivor’s Identity, Court Declines To Quash Charges

Karan Oberoi Rape Case: A Mumbai sessions court has declined to halt proceedings against Pooja Bedi and seven others accused of revealing.

The identity of a woman who filed a rape complaint against actor Karan Oberoi in 2019. The alleged disclosure reportedly occurred during a press conference held shortly after Oberoi’s arrest.

In its ruling, the court stated that there is prima facie evidence suggesting involvement of the accused in the offence, and therefore found no grounds to quash the charges at this preliminary stage. The case pertains to a violation of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits the disclosure of a rape survivor’s identity.

The Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri initiated legal proceedings against Pooja Bedi, actress Anveshi Jain, Chaitanya Bhosle, Varkay Patani, Gurbani Oberoi, Sherrin Verghase, actor Sudhanshu Pandey, and advocate Dinesh Tiwari.

The complainant alleged that shortly after filing the rape case against Karan Oberoi, the group held a press conference at Pooja Bedi’s residence, during which her identity was revealed. As a result, she approached the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Andheri and filed a formal complaint against them in June 2019.

At the outset, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court instructed the police to look into the allegations brought forward by the complainant and provide a report. The police investigation revealed that a press conference was held at Pooja Bedi’s residence on May 5, 2019, during which members of the group allegedly revealed the complainant’s identity, including her name and other sensitive personal information—an act that potentially breached legal protections afforded to sexual assault survivors.

The police further noted that the video of the press conference was widely circulated across multiple platforms and remains accessible online. Citing these findings, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, on February 26, 2021, decided to initiate proceedings against the group for allegedly disclosing the identity of a sexual offense survivor—an offense punishable under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code.

In April 2022, the accused group had approached the sessions court to challenge the Magistrate Court’s order, contending that there was no shared intention (common intention) or mens rea (guilty mind) involved in the alleged act. They argued that not all individuals named in the complaint had directly disclosed the complainant’s identity, and some maintained they neither mentioned her name nor shared any personally identifying information during the press conference.

In response, the complainant strongly opposed the group’s claims, stating that the disclosure of her identity during the press conference subjected her to social stigma and harassment. She argued that the act was carried out with a common intention and resulted in widespread circulation of her identity through YouTube, social media platforms, and several online articles, ultimately leading to defamation. She further alleged that, as a consequence, individuals were able to trace her residence and contact her directly, causing her significant distress and invasion of privacy.

After reviewing all aspects, the sessions court observed, “Even if one or more individuals took the name of the victim involved in the rape case, all will be held liable as per the complainant’s allegations of common intention among the applicants to commit the offense. The applicants’ argument that there was no mens rea to disclose the identity of the victim and the allegations are general are defenses that can be addressed during the trial.”