Court refuses interim protection from arrest to man booked for creating deep fake videos of Amitabh Bachchan

In May this year, Bachhan, through a lawyer, had registered a case with the cyber police, Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) after he came across several deep fake videos on social media platforms, which allegedly showed him promoting Patil’s firm. According to the complaint, Patil had allegedly posted obscene deepfake videos of the actor to advertise products related to sexual health.

The police, while opposing Patil’s plea, argued that when the investigation team had gone to Rishikesh during the probe, the employees in Patil’s firm stated that he was editing such videos and was putting them out through an Instagram account.

Mumbai police issued a notice to Patil under Section 41A (notice of appearance issued by the investigating officer) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, he did not remain present before the investigating officer on July 4 as per notice. Apprehending arrest, Patil approached the sessions court and sought interim protection from arrest pending disposal of his application.

Apprehending arrest, Patil approached the sessions court and sought interim protection from arrest pending disposal of his application.

In a written response to Patil’s plea, police argued that besides Bacchan, Patil had also created deep fake videos of other film actors as well.

Special public prosecutor Iqbal Solkar argued that such persons accused of cyber crimes were under the impression that they would get bail even in cases where they steal the identity of celebrities and actors to make obscene videos and therefore there is an increasing tendency to indulge into such crimes, which should be curbed by denying relief to the applicant. The prosecution claimed that Patil had cheated the public and the actor’s fans by creating deep fake videos using obscene language.

Police also argued that as Patil did not remain present before the investigating team despite being issued summons, he may continue to remain absent in future as well and therefore he should not be granted any relief as the same would hamper the investigation.

The court refused interim relief to Patil and adjourned the hearing of his pre-arrest bail plea.