In a case raising serious procedural concerns, the Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to a 23-year-old social media influencer accused of raping a 40-year-old woman. Noting the absence of charge-framing even after nine months of incarceration, the Court made pointed remarks on the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR and the nature of the allegations under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, the complainant, a 40-year-old entrepreneur, first contacted the accused in 2021 through social media while searching for an influencer to promote her clothing brand. The initial collaboration led to the accused allegedly requesting an iPhone for content creation, which the woman arranged through an authorised Apple store in Jammu. The relationship between them deteriorated after the accused attempted to resell the device.
The complaint further states that in December 2021, the accused visited the complainant’s residence in Noida to return ₹20,000. He then allegedly persuaded her to accompany him to Connaught Place for a brand shoot. During the trip, he purportedly offered her sweets laced with intoxicants, causing her to lose consciousness. Contrary to his assurance of taking her to Hindu Rao Hospital, he allegedly drove her to a secluded location, sexually assaulted her, stole money, and took nude photographs.
Over the subsequent two and a half years, the woman was allegedly blackmailed into travelling to Jammu multiple times, where she claims to have been subjected to further sexual abuse, extortion, and threats.
The accused, who has been in judicial custody for over nine months, sought interim bail on the ground that no charges had been framed to date. The defence contended that the continued incarceration amounted to unjustified pre-trial detention and urged the Court to examine the circumstances under which the offence under Section 376 IPC had been invoked.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma expressed serious reservations about the manner in which the case was registered. Observing that the complainant had travelled voluntarily with the accused, the Court remarked: “A single hand can't clap. On what basis have you filed case under Section 376 of 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 Supreme Court directed that the accused be produced before the trial court and released on interim bail, subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The matter remains pending, and further proceedings will be contingent on framing of charges and examination of evidence.
Source Link
Picture Source :
