The Allahabad High Court granted bail in a rape case filed nine years after the alleged incident, warning that opportunities and rights provided under the SC/ST Act should not be misused or abused. The Court emphasized responsible use of legal protections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to two accused in a case involving allegations of rape and offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cautioning that the rights granted to victims under the Act must not be misused or abused.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail under an FIR registered for offences under Sections 376-D, 354, 354-B, 323, 342, 406, 504, 506 of the IPC, along with Sections 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(Da) of the SC/ST Act.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
The decision was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar-X, who remarked that although courts typically avoid commenting on conduct during ongoing legal proceedings, the conduct of the complainant in this case appeared questionable, particularly considering that she has herself a practicing advocate since 2013.
Background of the Case
The defence argued that the FIR was filed after an unexplained delay of nine years, which significantly weakens the prosecution’s case. According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that:
- In October 2016, she met the Appellant while heading for a PCS coaching center.
- She claimed she was taken to a hotel and later to a friend’s residence, where she was allegedly raped under the false promise of marriage.
- She further alleged that the accused continued sexual relations without consent and forced her to consume pills, leading to the termination of her pregnancy.
The FIR names 18 accused persons, including four practicing advocates, and the complainant herself is also a lawyer. The defence argued that the complainant has a history of filing multiple criminal cases, and the delayed FIR was lodged as a counter-case to another FIR filed earlier.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
After reviewing the case materials, the bench found sufficient grounds to grant bail. The Court stated:
“It is apparent from the FIR that the alleged incident of rape had occurred way back in October 2016… Victim has admitted that she was not only raped but also assaulted and abused… The delay of nine years raises substantial doubt.”
Before concluding, the Court issued a caution:
“Opportunities and rights granted to victims under the SC/ST Act should not be misused and abused… The conduct of the victim in this case was inappropriate.”
The High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellants, holding that the delay in filing the FIR and questionable circumstances created grounds for relief.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Ram Raj Pandey, Advocate Shubham Pandey
Respondent: Government Advocate
Case Title:
Aznan Khan v. State of U.P. and Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 9437 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act
