Yograj Singh moves anticipatory bail plea, notice issued for May 20

Chandigarh Police had earlier registered the FIR against Yograj Singh at Sector 36 police station under Section 79 of the BNS and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Former Indian cricketer and actor Yograj SinghFormer Indian cricketer and actor Yograj Singh
2 min readMay 17, 2026 01:20 PM IST First published on: May 17, 2026 at 01:20 PM IST

Former Indian cricketer and actor Yograj Singh has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Chandigarh District Court.

The Court of District and Sessions Judge has issued notice to Chandigarh Police for May 20.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the police have also added Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in an FIR registered against him over alleged derogatory remarks against women in a purported viral clip from a web series.

In his anticipatory bail plea, Yograj Singh, through his counsel, has argued that the clip in question is from a web series in which he had played a character. It has been submitted that he was bound by an agreement executed for the web series, which was launched on an OTT platform.

The plea has further argued that the FIR has been falsely registered against him.

Advertisement

Chandigarh Police had earlier registered the FIR against Yograj Singh at Sector 36 police station under Section 79 of the BNS and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The case was registered following a complaint submitted by advocate Ujjwal Bhasin.

According to the complaint addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, Yograj Singh allegedly used language that was insulting and derogatory towards women in a viral social media clip linked to a web series.

The complainant had also sought legal action against all persons allegedly involved in producing, directing, promoting or circulating the content.

The complaint alleged that the remarks had hurt public sentiment and undermined the dignity and respect of women. It further stated that such statements were inappropriate, particularly when allegedly made by a public figure with significant social influence.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments