Mumbai, April 15, 2024: Tufail Ahmad Khan, accused of rape and related offenses, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. The order, issued by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, comes in response to Criminal Bail Application No. 641 of 2024, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Khan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 20/2024, registered at Ghatkopar Police Station, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 506-II (criminal intimidation with threat to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Allegations and Prosecution’s Stance:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Meera Choudhari-Bhosale and Advocate Afaf K. Shaikh (for the intervener), strongly opposed the bail application. They argued that the offence was serious, and while the charge sheet was filed, the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded. They expressed concerns that granting bail would lead to witness intimidation, evidence tampering, and flight risk. They also stated that the mobile phone containing objectionable material was recovered from the accused.

The complainant alleged that Khan, a friend of her ex-husband, had forcibly established sexual relations with her since December 2022, threatening to kill her children. She also alleged that he had taken nude photos and videos of her, which he threatened to circulate.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:

Advocate Sumedh Jagtap, representing Khan, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the relationship between him and the complainant was consensual. He pointed out that the charge sheet was filed, Khan had no prior criminal record, and he was a permanent resident of Mumbai.

Judge Kawdikar, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, highlighted several crucial points:

• Delayed FIR: The first alleged incident occurred in December 2022, and the last in February 2023, but the FIR was filed on January 5, 2024, nearly 11 months after the last alleged incident. The complainant did not provide a reason for the significant delay.
• Completed Investigation: The charge sheet was filed, and the mobile phone containing the alleged objectionable material was seized, indicating that the investigation was complete.
• Lack of Antecedents: Khan had no prior criminal record.
• Consensual Relationship Claim: The defense argued the relationship was consensual, which will be a matter of evidence during the trial.

Judge Kawdikar concluded that considering the delayed FIR, the completion of the investigation, and the lack of prior criminal record, continued incarceration of Khan would not serve any purpose.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Tufail Ahmad Khan with the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• He must attend Ghatkopar Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer with written notice until the trial concludes.
• He must not commit any offence in the future.
• He must not contact the complainant, witnesses, or their family members.
• He must not upload any videos or photographs of the complainant on social media.
• He cannot leave India without court permission.
• He must provide his permanent and temporary addresses and contact details to the police station.
• He must inform the police and court of any change in his residential address.
• Violation of any condition will result in the cancellation of bail.

Implications and Future Proceedings:

The granting of bail to Khan highlights the court’s consideration of the delayed FIR and the completion of the investigation. While the trial will proceed, and the prosecution will have the opportunity to present its evidence, the court’s decision underscores the balance between the presumption of innocence and the need to ensure the integrity of the legal process. The court also made it clear that the matter of the relationship being consensual, will be a matter of evidence during the trial.