The Supreme Court granted interim bail to a social media influencer in a rape case, remarking “single hand can’t clap,” and questioned how the FIR was filed when the woman had voluntarily accompanied him.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted interim bail to a 23-year-old accused of raping a 40-year-old woman, highlighting that charges had not yet been framed despite him being in jail for nine months.
The Court remarked that the woman was “not a baby” and noted, “a single hand can’t clap.”
In strong terms, a bench consisting of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma questioned how the Delhi Police could file a rape case when the woman had willingly accompanied the man, a social media influencer.
Also Read: [Rape Case] “Was Illiterate Victim’s Understanding of Settlement Verified?”: SC Questions
The bench stated,
“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 deemed it appropriate to grant interim bail, considering the lengthy detention without charges. The Court ordered that the accused be presented before the trial court and issued bail with specific conditions, including that he must not misuse his freedom or attempt to contact the woman.
The apex court also questioned the man’s influence, asking,
“Who gets influenced by such people?” This came during the hearing of the man’s plea against the Delhi High Court’s decision to deny him bail due to the seriousness of the allegations.
According to the police complaint, the woman initially connected with him in 2021 through social media while seeking a social media influencer to promote her clothing brand.
During their early interactions, the accused allegedly asked for an iPhone to help with content creation, which she procured through an authorized Apple Store in Jammu.
However, their professional relationship deteriorated after the accused attempted to resell the device. The authorized seller refunded the money to the woman but deducted Rs 20,000. Although he promised to return the full amount, she eventually decided to sever ties with him, as stated in the complaint.
In December 2021, the man visited her home in Noida to return the Rs 20,000 and apologize. He then convinced her to travel for a brand shoot in Connaught Place. During the journey, he allegedly offered her sweets laced with intoxicants, causing her to lose consciousness.
Also Read: ‘Disturbing Trend’: Delhi HC Slams Filing Of Fake Rape Cases, Refuses to Quash FIR
Instead of taking her to Hindu Rao Hospital as promised, the man allegedly took her to a secluded area behind the hospital, where he sexually assaulted her, stole money from her purse, and took nude photographs of her.
Following this, the woman was reportedly coerced into traveling to Jammu, where she endured ongoing sexual abuse, extortion, and threats for two and a half years, according to the complaint.
An FIR was filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 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).
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
