'Slumdog Millionaire' Actor Madhur Mittal Granted Interim Protection In Sexual Assault Case

Sharmeen Hakim

12 March 2021 1:29 PM GMT

  • Slumdog Millionaire Actor Madhur Mittal Granted Interim Protection In Sexual Assault Case

    A sessions court in Mumbai granted Slumdog Millionaire actor Madhur Mittal interim protection from arrest till March 26, in a sexual assault case filed against him by a 28-year-old woman on February 23, 2021.The woman, his former girlfriend, has accused him of sexually assaulting and battering her on February 13, at her Mumbai residence, after they broke up.Additional Sessions Judge...

    A sessions court in Mumbai granted Slumdog Millionaire actor Madhur Mittal interim protection from arrest till March 26, in a sexual assault case filed against him by a 28-year-old woman on February 23, 2021.

    The woman, his former girlfriend, has accused him of sexually assaulting and battering her on February 13, at her Mumbai residence, after they broke up.

    Additional Sessions Judge Sonali Aggarwal, after hearing the anticipatory bail plea, observed, "Considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case, the police is directed not to take any coercive action against the accused till the next date."

    The plea, among other grounds, cites a 10-day delay in filing of FIR. Mittal's lawyer argued before the court that the allegations were made only to defame Mittal.

    Mittal has been booked under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 354A, 354B & 354(D) (sections relating to stalking, forcibly disrobing) and 509 (words or gestures intending to insult the modesty of any woman) of IPC in the FIR registered at the Khar Police Station.

    During the anticipatory bail hearing, prosecutor Meera Choudhry argued that Mittal has admitted his presence at the scene of offence on February 13, 2021. "They have admitted everything except that he beat her up."

    Reading from the complaint, Choudhry said that even after the break-up Mittal kept harassing the complainant. "She informed her flatmate, who asked her to approach the police, but she went to a friend's house, instead," Choudhry argued.

    On February 15, Mittal allegedly came below the victim's house again, but left after her lawyer Niranjani Shetty threatened to call 104, the woman's helpline number.

    She was hurt under the eye and lip, and took treatment from Holy Family Hospital for her injuries on February 16, prosecutor Choudhry said, adding, an FIR was finally registered against Mittal on February 23.

    Advocate Saveena Bedi of Law Hive Associates, denied the allegations against Mittal. "These allegations are all false. I have evidence but I don't want to defame the victim. What is the need for his custodial interrogation?"

    She added that her client had no criminal cases pending against him either. "She (Victim) goes for a medical after three days. She has telephoned me after the alleged incident. Just because she provides four photographs of dark circles and torn lips, can that become an injury?" Bedi argued.

    In his anticipatory bail application, Mittal has also invoked his success as an actor in his defence. "The applicant is a well know actor and was seen in shows such as Slumdog Millionaire, Boogie Woogie whereas the informant is a model and struggling actor," his application reads.

    Mittal states that he was in a steady relationship with the victim even when he was shooting in Jaipur last month. He claims the victim broke up with him after he fell asleep on a video call.

    Mittal claimed that on the day of the alleged incident, he called the complainant from below her house and went up only after she agreed. He denied beating her up or touching her without her consent.

    In his ABA, Mittal says that he met with an accident some time ago due to which he has artificial incisors, with no sensation in them. "Due to this, the applicant does not realise if small cuts are caused on others lips while kissing," his application states.

    Mittal has also accused the victim of being religiously biased and trying to convert him. The ABA accuses the complainant of regularly ordering non-vegetarian food at his house, knowing his family was vegetarian.

    The case will now come up for hearing on March 26



    Next Story