In Brief
The Supreme Court quashed a High Court order granting anticipatory bail to a businessman accused of rape. A model alleged the accused lured her with job offers and raped her in a hotel. The High Court granted bail based on 'variations' in her account across supplementary statements. The Supreme Court held this wrong: the original FIR itself showed sufficient rape allegations; variations in supplementary statements made the same day or later were normal clarifications, not credibility defects. The Court stressed that the accused's wealth and influence posed witness-tampering risks, and crucially, that the prosecutrix had a statutory right to be heard on bail applications—a right wrongly denied. The bail bonds were cancelled.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.