In a significant development in Mumbai, the Dindoshi sessions court recently denied anticipatory bail to actress Rakhi Sawant. This decision came in light of a complaint filed by her ex-husband, Adil Khan Durrani, accusing her of displaying and sharing sexually explicit material involving him.

The Origin of the Complaint

The case against Rakhi Sawant stems from an incident that allegedly took place during a television show aired on August 25. Durrani claims that Sawant revealed sexually explicit content on her mobile phone during the broadcast. This included two videos, 29 minutes and 25 seconds, and 23 minutes and 22 seconds long, respectively. Following this, on October 18, Durrani filed a formal complaint against her.

Rakhi Sawant’s Defense

In response to these allegations, Sawant filed for anticipatory bail, arguing that Durrani’s character itself was questionable. She stated that Durrani had multiple cases registered against him. Rakhi maintained that while the video was shown on television, its explicit content was not visible. Sawant also suggested that if charges were to be pressed, Durrani should be co-accused.

Prosecution’s Argument and Court’s Decision

The prosecution contested Sawant’s claims, asserting that she did not only display the contentious video on television but also distributed it across various WhatsApp groups. They cited her history of allegedly transmitting sexually explicit material, referencing another case where her anticipatory bail was rejected. However, Sawant’s legal counsel clarified that she had been granted pre-arrest bail in that instance by the Bombay High Court.

Upon reviewing the arguments and evidence, the court concluded that the material in question was not only obscene but also sexually explicit. The court noted Sawant’s claim of cooperating with the investigation. Yet, the investigation officer contradicted this, highlighting the need to seize the devices used for transmitting and storing the controversial material, which are reportedly still in Sawant’s possession. This led to the court’s decision to refuse her anticipatory bail application.