Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR against Sapna Gill in Prithvi Shaw selfie row

On Thursday, the Bombay High Court declined to crush the First Information Report (FIR) filed against Sapna Gil, a social media influencer, in connect with a mutation which involved cricketer Prithvi Shaw over a request for a selfie at a restaurant. The court considered Sapna to access the trial court for release after filing the chargesheet.

At the Sahara Star’s Mansion Club, the incident, which took place on February 15, 2023, began when Gill’s friend, Shobit Thakur, started continuously asking for selfies with Shaw around 1 AM while he was having his dinner with Ashish Surendra Yadav, Shaw’s friend. However, Shaw obliged and resisted initially; he later refused further requests, leading to Thakur being sacked from the premises.

Following that night, Thakur was purportedly attacked with a baseball bat as the cricketer tried to leave. Luckily, Shaw was able to rescue himself from the scenario, but his friend Yadav was pursued by a group of six, along with Thakur, who also suspects a woman believed to be Sapna Gill. The group threatened Yadav, and Gill demanded  ₹50,000.

Also Read: ‘I still remember the moment when we lifted that World Cup’ – Prithvi Shaw reflects on his first memory of Wankhede Stadium

However, Gill narrated a whole different story, which claimed that Yadav and Shaw had invited her and Thakur to their VIP seat for an “alcohol-fueled party.” She stated that after Thakur asked for a selfie, an altercation ensued, during which Shaw and Yadav assaulted Thakur. When she tried to stop the scenario, Shaw physically and sexually assaulted her.

With Yadav going forward with the complaint, Gill was arrested on February 17, 2023, but was granted bail three days later. Accusing Shaw of “assault, molestation, and outraging her modesty, she registered a counter-complaint.

During Thursday’s hearing, Gill’s lawyer, Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, pointed to the cross-case against Shaw and argued that the case against her was “baseless and an abuse of the legal system.” However, the court noted that “the FIR mentions some crime” and refused to quash it.

The bench, including Justices S.M. Modak and Sarang Kotwal, said that the extortion charge might not hold since “actual delivery of money or property never took place.” It directed the additional public prosecutor, J.P. Yagnik, to submit the charge sheet for review before the next hearing on April 3.

Disclaimer: The information presented in this news article is based on the author’s insights, analysis, and perspective. Readers are encouraged to evaluate the details thoughtfully and draw their own conclusions.

anne julliene

See Full Bio