The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to a 23-year-old social media influencer accused of raping a 40-year-old woman, observing that he has been incarcerated for nine months without charges being framed. The bench remarked that the case required closer scrutiny, questioning the basis of the rape allegations and criticising investigative lapses.
A vacation bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, while hearing the bail plea, expressed skepticism over the charges framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, given the nature of the alleged victim’s voluntary interactions with the accused.
“A single hand can’t clap. She is not a baby. The woman is 40 years old. They have gone together to Jammu seven times and the husband is not bothered,” Justice Nagarathna remarked during the hearing, expressing surprise at the invocation of rape charges in this context.
The court noted that the accused had already spent nine months in judicial custody while the trial had yet to begin. Directing his production before the trial court, the bench granted interim bail subject to conditions, including that he shall not contact the woman or misuse his liberty.
The Supreme Court also commented on the social media stature of the accused, asking pointedly, “Who gets influenced by such people?”
The bail petition challenged a Delhi High Court order which had earlier refused relief, citing the gravity of the allegations. According to the prosecution, the woman first connected with the accused in 2021 through social media, seeking collaboration for her clothing brand.
As per her complaint, the relationship turned sour when the influencer tried to resell an iPhone she had arranged for him to enhance content creation. Despite a refund being processed, Rs 20,000 was allegedly deducted, prompting further fallout.
She alleged that in December 2021, the man visited her in Noida under the pretext of returning the money and subsequently lured her to a brand shoot. During the journey, she claimed he drugged her, sexually assaulted her near Hindu Rao Hospital, stole from her, and took explicit photographs.
Further, the complaint alleges that she was blackmailed and forced to accompany him to Jammu multiple times, where she endured prolonged sexual abuse, extortion, and threats over two-and-a-half years.
An FIR was registered against the man under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault on a woman), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (outraging the modesty of a woman), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The case is now set to proceed before the trial court, where the bail conditions will be formally recorded. The Supreme Court’s interim relief opens the door for a deeper examination of both the factual and legal complexities surrounding the case.
