- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Owner Of Ayurveda Firm Denied Interim Bail In Deepfake Video Case Involving Amitabh Bachchan
Owner Of Ayurveda Firm Denied Interim Bail In Deepfake Video Case Involving Amitabh Bachchan
A court in Mumbai has refused to grant interim protection from arrest to the owner of an Ayurveda firm based in Uttarakhand, who stands accused of creating and disseminating a deepfake video of actor Amitabh Bachchan.
Sessions Judge V. M. Pathade rejected Abhijit Patil's plea for interim protection from arrest. Patil, who operates an Ayurveda firm in Rishikesh, faces charges after Bachchan filed a complaint with the cyber police in May.
The complaint alleged that several deepfake videos on social media falsely depicted Bachchan endorsing products from Patil's company. The accused is accused of producing and disseminating lewd, deep-fake videos of the actor to promote sexual health products.
Concerned about potential arrest, Patil had applied for anticipatory bail in a session court, requesting temporary relief until a decision was made on his plea.
In its written response to Patil's plea, the police emphasized that individuals accused of cybercrimes often assume they will receive bail, even when accused of fabricating obscene videos using celebrities' identities.
The police asserted that granting relief to the accused would impede the ongoing investigation.
The police further contended that the accused had deceived the public and the actor's admirers by generating a deep-fake video with explicit content and obscene language.
The hearing on the accused's pre-arrest bail plea has been adjourned. The police stated that they have taken statements from Patil's employees, who disclosed that he created and uploaded the videos on social media. Despite being in the city, Patil did not appear before the cyber police after receiving a notice to do so by July 4.