The First Information Report (FIR) against social media influencer Sapna Gil in relation to a mutation involving cricket player Prithvi Shaw over a request for a selfie at a restaurant was denied by the Bombay High Court on Thursday. After filing the chargesheet, the court took into consideration allowing Sapna to go to the trial court for release.
The incident, which happened on February 15, 2023, at the Sahara Star’s Mansion Club, started when Gill’s friend Shobit Thakur began persistently requesting selfies with Shaw at around one in the morning as he was eating supper with Shaw’s friend Ashish Surendra Yadav. Shaw initially complied and resisted, but he later turned down other requests, which resulted in Thakur’s termination from the company.
When the cricket player attempted to depart after that evening, Thakur was allegedly assaulted with a baseball bat. Fortunately, After threatening Yadav, the group wanted ₹50,000 from Sapna Gill.
Shaw managed to escape the situation, but his companion Yadav and Thakur, who also suspected a woman who is thought to be Sapna Gill, were chased by a gang of six.
Sapna Gill, however, told a completely different tale, claiming that she and Thakur had been invited to Yadav and Shaw’s VIP seat for a “alcohol-fueled party.” According to her, an altercation broke out after Thakur requested a selfie, during which Shaw and Yadav attacked Thakur. Shaw assaulted her physically and sexually when she attempted to halt the scenario.
Sapna Gill was detained on February 17, 2023, when Yadav proceeded with the complaint; however, he was released on bail three days later. She filed a counter-complaint, accusing Shaw of “outraging her modesty, assaulting her, and molestation her.”
Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, Sapna Gill attorney, cited the cross-case against Shaw during Thursday’s hearing and contended that the evidence against her was “baseless and an abuse of the legal system.” The court declined to suppress it, stating that “the FIR mentions some crime.”
The bench, which included Justices Sarang Kotwal and S.M. Modak, stated that since “actual delivery of money or property never took place,” the extortion case might not be upheld. Before the next hearing on April 3, it instructed J.P. Yagnik, the extra public prosecutor, to submit the charge sheet for review.
Home