As per case facts, an aspiring actress accused a film producer of rape, alleging that he forced himself upon her after she felt dizzy from wine, and later repeatedly compelled ... her to have sex, exploiting her with false promises of marriage. The alleged incidents occurred over several months in Mumbai and Hyderabad, but the complaint was lodged significantly later. The accused was initially granted anticipatory bail, which was cancelled for non-disclosure in another case, leading him to seek regular bail. The High Court granted bail, considering the accused's prior anticipatory bail period without issues, the reason for its cancellation, the examination of material witnesses, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the consensual nature of the relationship. The complainant appealed, citing the seriousness of the charges, the accused's position of power, her suicide attempts as an explanation for the delay, a subsequent intimidation attempt (second FIR), and incomplete investigation. The question arose whether the High Court's decision to grant bail was justified and if any subsequent events warranted its cancellation. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's discretion in granting bail, noting the intimate contact, the complainant's visits, and the delay in filing the complaint, which suggested a consensual relationship, and found no sufficient supervening circumstances to cancel the bail, though it enhanced the personal bond amount.