The Supreme Court granted bail to a 23-year-old social media influencer accused of raping a 40-year-old woman, dismissing the charges as "false and frivolous." The decision, delivered by Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra in New Delhi, has sparked widespread debate, with the court questioning the validity of the allegations and the actions of the Delhi Police.

The case began in 2021 when the complainant, a clothing brand owner, connected with the influencer via social media to promote her business. Their professional relationship initially involved her arranging an iPhone for him through an authorized Apple Store in Jammu to enhance his content creation. However, tensions arose when the influencer allegedly attempted to resell the device, leading to a financial dispute. The seller returned the money to the woman’s account, minus Rs 20,000, which the influencer promised to repay. The woman later decided to sever ties with him.

According to the police complaint, the influencer visited her Noida residence in December 2021 to apologize and return the Rs 20,000. He then persuaded her to travel to Connaught Place for a brand shoot. During the journey, the woman alleged he gave her intoxicant-laced sweets, causing her to lose consciousness. She claimed he took her to a secluded area behind Hindu Rao Hospital, where he sexually assaulted her, stole money from her purse, and took nude photographs. The complaint further alleged that over the next two and a half years, she was coerced into traveling to Jammu, where she faced ongoing sexual abuse, extortion, and threats.

Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks NIA Reply in Shah Terror Funding Case

An FIR was lodged against the influencer under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 376 (rape), 354 (assault on a woman), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), and 34 (common intention). However, the Supreme Court, which had previously granted interim bail, expressed skepticism about the case. Noting that the woman had traveled to Jammu with the accused multiple times, the bench remarked, “A single hand can’t clap. She is not a baby. The woman is 40 years old. Why have you invoked Section 376?” The court also highlighted that the complainant failed to appear despite notices and that no charges had been framed despite the influencer’s nine-month detention.

The influencer’s lawyer argued that the relationship was consensual, a point the court considered in its decision to grant bail. The ruling overturns a Delhi High Court order that had denied bail due to the seriousness of the allegations. The Supreme Court’s scathing observations, including questioning the Delhi Police’s handling of the case, have raised concerns about the misuse of serious charges and the need for thorough investigations. As the case progresses, it underscores the complexities of navigating allegations in high-profile legal battles involving public figures.

Also Read: Arun Gawli Returns to Dagdi Chawl in Grand Welcome