NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to a Canadian citizen accused in a rape case, saying that based on unverified allegations, it cannot be held that he is required to be morally condemned.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale granted relief to Manpreet Singh Gill, a Canadian citizen, who was booked for rape by the Punjab police on a complaint filed by a woman.
The police lodged the complaint on November 11, 2025, by the woman, who alleged that she was misled about his marital status and had developed a relationship.
She alleged that Gill threatened her with dire consequences to withdraw an earlier complaint and had a sexual relationship with her on the intervening night of 9th and November 10, 2025, after administering alcohol and intimidating her.
Gill, who has challenged the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denying him pre-arrest bail through his lawyer advocate Sana Raees Khan contended that the relationship was consensual.
Khan argued that the FIR was driven by an extortionist motive, pointing out that the complainant was fully aware of his marital status from the very inception of their relationship.
She further highlighted material inconsistencies, noting that while the alleged video was claimed to have been received on November 2, 2025, there was a conspicuous omission of this crucial allegation in the FIR lodged on November 11, 2025.
The bench in an April 20 order said that the court had earlier granted an interim protection to Gill pursuant to which he had appeared before the Investigating Officer (IO).
"Even according to the complainant, the relationship between the parties was consensual. As to whether any threat was posed, as alleged, is a matter of evidence. Based on unverified allegations, it cannot be held that the appellant requires to be morally condemned. As such, we are of the considered view that the appellant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail," it ordered.
The bench allowed the plea of Gill and ordered that he be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional investigating officer may deem fit to impose, and also on the condition that he would appear before the jurisdictional court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason.
The trial court had dismissed the anticipatory bail plea on December 1 last year, after which Gill had approached the high court. The high court dismissed his plea on December 24 as well.
Gill, in his plea before the high court, said that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and perversity.
"Both the high court and sessions court mechanically relied on FIR allegations, ignoring glaring inconsistencies, omissions, and improvements brought on record by the petitioner. While anticipatory bail jurisprudence avoids a mini-trial, it requires prima facie credibility evaluation, which these courts entirely bypassed," it said.
Gill claimed that he was falsely implicated in this case without any fault on his part.
"The petitioner faces implication solely for extortion, as the Informant visited his house demanding Rs. 50 lakhs, threatening to turn hostile in her Section 183 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 statement," his plea said.