Bombay HC Hears Ajaz Khan’s Pre-Arrest Bail Plea In Rape Case, Seeks State’s Stand

Last Updated:May 25, 2025, 08:26 IST

The Bombay High Court has asked the State to respond to actor Ajaz Khan’s pre-arrest bail plea by June 2.

Ajaz Khan is known for shows like Bigg Boss 7 and Khatron Ke Khiladi 5. (Photo: X)

The Bombay High Court has directed the State government to respond to the pre-arrest bail application submitted by actor Ajaz Khan. This relates to a case registered by the Charkop police station earlier this month involving allegations of rape under the pretense of marriage and work in the film industry, as reported by a struggling actress.

Justice Shyam Chandak, serving as the vacation judge, instructed the state on May 22 to submit its reply by June 2, while denying interim urgent relief to the actor.

Khan sought pre-arrest bail from the High Court after the sessions court in Dindoshi rejected his application the previous week. The sessions court dismissed Khan’s claim that his relationship with the actress was consensual, observing, “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.”

Furthermore, the sessions judge noted the necessity of Khan’s custodial interrogation for medical examination, evidence collection, recovery of his mobile phone, and verification of WhatsApp chats and call recordings, as well as the acquisition of other digital evidence including voice samples.

The complainant, an aspiring actress, accused Khan of leveraging his celebrity status and position as a reality show host to gain her trust. The FIR indicates that, under false promises of marriage and professional support, Khan engaged in physical relations with the victim multiple times without her unequivocal consent. The woman claimed that Khan sexually exploited her on April 4 and again on April 24, under the assurance of marrying her.

Khan, however, denied the allegations, asserting that the complainant was fully aware of his marital status and insisting that their relationship was consensual. He referenced their chats and audio messages, alleging that the complainant demanded money in exchange for dropping the case.

First Published: