The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to a 23-year-old social media influencer accused of raping a 40-year-old woman, observing that the allegations appeared to be false and frivolous.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the complainant had failed to appear despite repeated notices. The court also recorded submissions made on behalf of the accused that the relationship was consensual.
The accused had been lodged in jail for nine months, and though the apex court had earlier granted him interim bail, it remarked that no charges had been framed in the matter. The Bench had pointedly questioned the Delhi Police over invoking rape charges.
“A single hand can’t clap. On what basis have you filed a case under Section 376 IPC? She is not a baby. The woman is 40 years old. They have gone together to Jammu. Why have you invoked 376? This lady goes to Jammu seven times and the husband is not bothered,” the court had earlier observed.
According to the police complaint, the woman first came into contact with the influencer in 2021 through social media while seeking promotion for her clothing brand. Their interactions allegedly turned contentious after a dispute over an iPhone purchased for content creation, which the accused attempted to resell.
The complaint further stated that in December 2021, the influencer visited her home in Noida to return money and later persuaded her to travel for a brand shoot. During the journey, he allegedly spiked her sweets, assaulted her near Hindu Rao Hospital in Delhi, stole money from her purse, and captured compromising photographs.
The woman also alleged that she was coerced into accompanying him to Jammu multiple times, where she was subjected to sexual abuse, threats, and extortion over a period of two-and-a-half years.
An FIR was registered under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault on woman), 323 (causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting modesty of woman), and 34 IPC.
Earlier, the Delhi High Court had refused to grant bail citing the seriousness of allegations. However, the Supreme Court took a different view, pointing out inconsistencies in the woman’s conduct and stressing that she was a consenting adult.
