The Bombay high court has asked the State government to file its reply to the pres-arrest bail plea filed by actor Ajaz Khan in connection with the case registered with Charkop police station earlier this month for rape on promise of marriage and work in film industry, on a complaint of a struggling actress.
Vacation judge, Justice Shyam Chandak on May 22 asked the state to file its reply by June 2 while refusing to grant interim urgent relief to the actor.
Khan approached the HC seeking pre-arrest bail after the same was rejected by the sessions court at Dindoshi last week. The sessions court had refused to accept Khan’s contention that the relation between him and the actress was consensual and observed that, “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.”
Moreover, the sessions judge opined that his custodial interrogation is required for medical examination to collect evidence, recovery of his mobile phone, verification of WhatsApp chats, call recordings and collection of other digital evidence including to obtain voice samples, etc.
The complainant, a struggling actress, had alleged that she was induced into a relationship by Khan, who allegedly misused his position as a celebrity and host of a reality show to gain the victim’s confidence. The FIR alleges that on the false pretext of marriage and promises of financial help and professional advancement, the applicant established physical relations with the victim on multiple occasions without her free and unequivocal consent. The woman alleged that Khan sexually exploited her on two occasions once on April 4 and again on April 24, on the assurance of marrying her.
Khan however, refuted the allegations and claimed that the complainant was very well aware that Khan is married. He further claimed that their relationship is consensual. Khan referred to their chats, and audio massages and claimed that the complainant demanded money to withdraw the case.
