SC-ST Act Not To Be Misused & Abused: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Accused In FIR Filed After Delay Of 9 Years

The Allahabad High Court while granting bail to two accused arrested in connection with an FIR involving allegations of rape and offences under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has warned against the misuse and abuse of the special act.

The Court was considering an Appeal against rejection of bail in an FIR registered under Sections 376-D, 354, 354-B, 323, 342, 406, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)5, 3(1)Da of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X held, "Before parting with this order, this Court would like to mention that opportunities and rights granted to victim under the SC/ST Act with an intention to afford the victim an opportunity to appear in each and every proceeding should not be misused and abused. Courts shall generally refrain from making any comment upon the conduct of the parties. However, the conduct of the victim in this case was inappropriate considering the fact that she herself is a practicing advocate since the year 2013."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Ram Raj Pandey while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) in the case has been lodged after a delay of nine years. The victim alleged that in October 2016, she was going to attend a PCS coaching centre. The Appellant met her and offered her to sit in his car and took her near a bus stand. After some time, he took her to a hotel and, despite her refusal, later took her to the residence of his friend. It was alleged that she was raped under the false promise of marriage.

However, the Appellant later refused to marry her and continued to have physical relations with her without her consent. In between, she was also forcibly asked to consume some pills, which resulted in the termination of her pregnancy.

Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the FIR was lodged against 18 accused persons including the Appellants. Out of the eighteen accused, four of them are Advocates, and the Victim herself is an Advocate. It was submitted that the Victim herself has a long criminal history and has lodged several criminal cases against the Appellant and other accused persons.

The Counsel thus contended that the lodging of the FIR after nine years of the incident, which occurred in October 2016, in counter to the FIR registered by Appellant is itself sufficient to show that the FIR has been lodged after legal consultation.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the submissions of the Counsel for the Appellant and ruled that a case for bail is made out.

"I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record including the FIR. 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 was also assaulted and abused by the appellants. She has also stated that the appellant Furkan, after the commission of the rape, has also assured her to solemnize marriage with her", the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Aznan Khan v. State of U.P. and Another (2025:AHC:210559)

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Ram Raj Pandey, Advocate Shubham Pandey

Respondent- Government Advocate 

Click here to read/ download Order