Karan Oberoi Rape Case: Pooja Bedi And Seven Others Booked For Allegedly Disclosing Identity Of Survivor

Karan Oberoi Rape Case: A Mumbai sessions court has refused to stop proceedings against actress 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 happened during a press conference shortly after Oberoi's arrest. The court ruled that there's enough evidence to suggest the accused were involved in the offense, so there's no reason to dismiss the charges at this early stage.

The case revolves around a violation of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits disclosing a rape survivor's identity. Oberoi was accused of rape and blackmail by the victim, leading to his arrest and a complaint filed with the Oshiwara Police in May 2019. Charges were brought under the Indian Penal Code Sections 376 (rape) and 384 (extortion).

Pooja Bedi and Sudhanshu Pandey, another actor, had spoken out in support of Oberoi, but a complaint was filed against them and others in June 201. Bedi claimed she didn't reveal the victim's identity in any interview, stating she supported women's rights but felt the laws were being misused in this case. The court, however, found sufficient grounds to issue summons to Bedi, Pandey and the others, requiring them to appear in court. The case is ongoing, with the court allowing the proceedings to continue.

The accused include actress Anveshi Jain, Chaitanya Bhosle, Varkay Patani, Gurbani Oberoi, Sherrin Verghase, actor Sudhanshu Pandey and advocate Dinesh Tiwari. According to the complainant, the group held a press conference at Pooja Bedi's residence, where they disclosed her identity, violating Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which prohibits revealing a rape survivor's identity.

The incident occurred shortly after Karan Oberoi's arrest and the complainant filed a formal complaint against the group in June 2019. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the accused's involvement in the offense, thus deciding to continue the proceedings. The accused later challenged the court's decision, arguing they didn't intend to cause harm or reveal the complainant's identity, but the court found sufficient evidence to continue the case. The case will now proceed, allowing both sides to present their arguments.

The complainant opposed the group's claims, stating that the disclosure of her identity led to social stigma, harassment and defamation, with her identity widely circulated online, and individuals even tracing her residence and contacting her directly, causing significant distress.

According to a report in News18, the sessions court said, "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."