Ajaz Khan's plea for anticipatory bail in connection with the rape case REJECTED

Mumbai's Charkop Police filed a rape case against actor Ajaz Khan following a complaint from an actress. She alleged sexual assault by Khan, who had promised her marriage and work in the film industry. The case was registered under specific sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and police investigations are currently underway.

The Dindoshi Sessions Court denied Ajaz Khan's request for anticipatory bail in the rape case. Judge D.G. Dhoble dismissed Khan's assertion that his relationship with the actress was consensual.

The material on record shows that the applicant is married and an actress by profession. Though the victim is major, considering allegations it appears that consent is not free and unequivocally within the meaning of law

- Judge

Starting with the court's decision, Ajaz Khan's request for anticipatory bail was rejected, leading to the determination that his custodial interrogation is crucial. This is needed for a medical examination, the recovery of his mobile phone, verification of digital communications, and the collection of voice samples.

The actress's account details how Khan offered her a role in his OTT project, House Arrest, and other future ventures, concurrently proposing marriage. She alleges that he then raped her at his residence on March 25, under the pretense of marriage, and again a few days later, with the same promise.

The actress also stated that Khan informed her his religion allows multiple marriages and promised to take full responsibility for her.

In contrast, Khan denies all accusations, claiming the actress knew he was married. He insists their relationship was consensual, citing chat history and audio messages as proof. Khan also alleges that the complainant demanded money from him to drop the case.

“After considering submissions and on perusal of records, it appears that the allegations in the FIR are of repeated sexual exploitation by the applicant on the basis of inducements and false promise of marriage and professional benefits, which go to the root of the complainant’s free consent," the court said.

Considering the conflicting narratives, the court emphasized the importance of a thorough investigation to ascertain the truth. The absence of the alleged financial demand in the provided chat records further complicated the matter, leading the court to deny anticipatory bail. The court's decision underscored the need for custodial interrogation to clarify the intentions and actions of both parties.