The Bombay High Court criticised Mumbai Police for a lackadaisical investigation into a 2022 hit-and-run case, questioning their delay and casual approach. The court stressed accountability in handling such serious offences.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to a 23-year-old social media influencer who had been accused of raping a 40-year-old woman. The Court noted that the case appeared to involve false and frivolous allegations against the young man.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Mishra said that despite the issuance of notice, the complainant was not appearing before the Court.
ALSO READ: ECHS facility extended to cadets disabled during training, Centre tells Supreme Court
The Court also considered the submissions of the lawyer representing the accused, who argued that the relationship between the woman and the influencer was consensual.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had already granted interim bail to the man, observing that even though he had spent nine months in jail, charges had not been framed against him. At that time, the Court had made significant remarks, saying that the woman was “not a baby” and “a single hand can’t clap”.
In sharp comments directed at the Delhi Police, the bench had also questioned how a rape case was registered under Section 376 IPC when the circumstances suggested otherwise.
The bench observed:
“A single hand can’t clap. On what basis have you filed a case under Section 376 of the IPC? She is not a baby. The woman is 40 years old. They have gone together to Jammu. Why have you invoked Section 376? This lady goes to Jammu seven times and the husband is not bothered.”
The Supreme Court was hearing the plea filed by the accused against an order of the Delhi High Court, which had earlier refused to grant him bail while citing the seriousness of the allegations.
According to the woman’s complaint to the police, she first came into contact with the influencer in 2021 through social media. At that time, she was looking for an influencer to promote her clothing brand.
During their initial conversations, the influencer allegedly asked her to provide him with an iPhone to create better content. The woman arranged for the phone through an authorised Apple store in Jammu.
However, their professional ties reportedly broke down when the accused tried to resell the iPhone. The authorised dealer refunded the amount to the woman’s account but deducted Rs 20,000.
Although the accused had promised to repay this money, the woman later decided to cut off all relations with him, as mentioned in the complaint.
In December 2021, the influencer allegedly visited the woman at her home in Noida to return the ₹20,000 and apologise. He then persuaded her to travel with him for a brand shoot at Connaught Place.
During the journey, according to the complaint, the accused offered her sweets laced with intoxicants, which caused her to lose consciousness.
The woman alleged that instead of taking her to Hindu Rao Hospital as he assured, the accused took her to a secluded place behind the hospital, sexually assaulted her, stole money from her purse, and even took nude photographs of her.
After this, the woman claimed that she was forced to travel with him to Jammu, where she was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse, threats, and extortion for over two-and-a-half years.
ALSO READ: Dharmasthala Case Twist: Court Extends SIT Custody of Complainant Chinnaiah till Sept 6
On the basis of her complaint, an FIR was registered against the influencer under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault on woman), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court, while finally granting bail, underlined the inconsistencies in the case and the conduct of the complainant, leading to its strong observations on the misuse of serious charges like rape in certain cases.
Click Here To Read More Reports On Mumbai Police
