Related Articles
The Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected a plea to quash the First Information Report (FIR) against social media influencer Sapna Gill in connection with her altercation with cricketer Prithvi Shaw over a selfie dispute at a Mumbai restaurant. The court ruled that Gill could approach the trial court for relief after the chargesheet is filed.
Table of content
The Incident at Sahara Star’s Mansion Club
The dispute occurred on February 15, 2023, at Mansion Club, located inside Sahara Star Hotel in Mumbai. The confrontation began when Gill’s friend, Shobit Thakur, persistently requested selfies with Prithvi Shaw around 1 AM while Shaw was dining with his friend Ashish Surendra Yadav.
Initially, Shaw obliged, but after repeated requests, he declined further photos. This led to Thakur being escorted out of the premises. Later that night, as Shaw attempted to leave, a group allegedly attacked Thakur with a baseball bat. Shaw managed to escape, but his friend Yadav was pursued by six individuals, including Gill and Thakur, who allegedly threatened him and demanded ₹50,000.
Also Check: Why Did Yuzvendra Chahal And Dhanashree End Their Marriage? Real Reason Revealed
Conflicting Narratives
Sapna Gill, however, presented a different version of the incident. She claimed that Shaw and Yadav had invited her and Thakur to their VIP section for a gathering involving alcohol consumption. According to her, an altercation erupted after Thakur asked for a selfie, during which Shaw and Yadav assaulted Thakur.
Gill further alleged that when she attempted to intervene, Shaw physically and sexually assaulted her. Following the incident, she filed a counter-complaint against Shaw, accusing him of assault, molestation, and outraging her modesty.
Legal Proceedings and Court’s Stand
Based on Yadav’s complaint, Gill was arrested on February 17, 2023, but was granted bail three days later. During the Thursday hearing, Gill’s lawyer, Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, argued that the case against her was baseless and an abuse of legal proceedings. However, the court observed that the FIR contained allegations of a crime and refused to quash it.
The bench, comprising Justices S.M. Modak and Sarang Kotwal, acknowledged that while the extortion charge may not hold, as no money was actually exchanged, there were still legal grounds to proceed. The court directed Additional Public Prosecutor J.P. Yagnik to submit the chargesheet for review before the next hearing on April 3, 2025.
The case remains under scrutiny, with further legal developments expected in the coming weeks.
