The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted interim bail to a 23-year-old social media influencer accused of raping a 40-year-old woman after he had spent nine months in jail without charges being framed in the case.

A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma questioned the Delhi Police’s decision to invoke rape charges in the case, noting that the woman was an adult who had voluntarily accompanied the accused on outstation trips on multiple occasions.

“A single hand can’t clap. On what basis have you filed a case under Section 376 of IPC? She is not a baby. The woman is 40 years old. They have gone together to Jammu,” the bench observed.

“Why have you invoked 376? This lady goes to Jammu seven times and the husband is not bothered,” it added.

The bench court also remarked on the man, asking, “Who gets influenced by such people?”

The judges made these observations orally in open court; in its order, the bench said the matter was fit for interim bail, given the accused’s prolonged incarceration and delay in framing charges.

“Pending consideration of this special leave petition, we find that this is a fit case where interim bail ought to be granted to the petitioner herein who is aged about 23 years as of now since he has been in jail for over nine months (since 07.08.2024) and charges have not yet been framed till date. In the circumstance, we direct that the petitioner be produced before the concerned trial court as early as possible and the trial court shall release him on interim bail subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate,” the Supreme Court said.

The court also restrained the accused from contacting the complainant or misusing his liberty while out on bail.

The observations came during a hearing on a plea filed by the accused, Harash Kumar,challenging a Delhi high court order that denied him bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations.

According to the woman’s complaint, she first met the accused in 2021 via social media while seeking promotional help for her clothing brand. What began as a professional relationship allegedly turned abusive, with the woman accusing Kumar of drugging, sexually assaulting, extorting, and threatening her over a period of the next two-and-a-half years.

During initial interactions, the accused allegedly requested to be bought iPhone, which she arranged through a store in Jammu.

However, their professional relationship soured after the accused attempted to resell the device. The authorised seller returned the money in the woman’s account, but after deducting ₹20,000. Although he promised to return the money, the woman said she decided to end all ties with him.

In December 2021, the man visited the woman at her Noida house to return the ₹20,000 and apologise. He subsequently persuaded her to travel for a brand shoot in Connaught Place. During the journey, the accused allegedly gave her sweets laced with intoxicants and she lost consciousness.Contrary to assurances that she would be taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, the man allegedly took her to a secluded area behind the hospital, sexually assaulted her, stole money from her purse, and took nude photographs of her.

Thereafter, the woman said, she was coerced into travelling to Jammu where she was subjected to continued sexual abuse, extortion, and threats over a two-and-a-half-year period, according to the complaint.

Following her complaint, an FIR was registered against Kumar in July 2024, under sections 376, 354, 506, and 509 of the IPC for the offences of rape, sexual assault, criminal intimidation, and insulting the modesty of a woman. Kumar was arrested by the Delhi police from Jammu in August 2024.

In its April 30, 2025, order denying bail to the accused, the Delhi high court had acknowledged the existence of extensive WhatsApp exchanges between the complainant and Kumar, indicating a prior relationship. The high court had noted at the time that the complainant did not dispute that she and Kumar knew each other before the alleged incidents of rape and sexual assault. Kumar’s counsel had submitted over 100 pages of WhatsApp chats, which included exchanges of birthday greetings, discussions about meetings, and expressions of affection. There was even a message where the complainant demanded a mangalsutra for daily wear. Incidentally, these messages spanned both before and after the alleged rape incident, the high court had noted at the time.

Despite these observations, the high court had ultimately held that the WhatsApp messages did indicate “sustained and deliberate acts of blackmail, criminal intimidation, and extortion.”