Recently, while deciding a criminal appeal arising from a rape case lodged nearly a decade after the alleged incident, the Allahabad High Court cautioned that the procedural entitlements available to a victim under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must be exercised with fidelity to their purpose. The Court observed that the rights conferred upon a victim “should not be misused and abused,” even as it extended bail to the two appellants.
The case stemmed from an FIR filed in 2024, in which the complainant, herself a practising advocate, alleged that she first met one of the appellants, Furkan Ilahi, in 2016. According to the FIR, Ilahi took her to a hotel and later to the residence of co-accused Aznan Khan. It was alleged that Khan closed the door from outside, enabling Ilahi to commit rape. The complainant further asserted that she remained silent due to Ilahi’s assurance of marriage, and that the appellants continued physical relations with her thereafter, administering pills that led to the termination of her pregnancy.
The Appellants challenged their custody on the ground that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of nine years. They also highlighted that the complainant had filed multiple cases against them over time and that the present FIR was registered merely 20 days after one of the appellants instituted proceedings against her in August.
The Appellants argued that the extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR indicated that the complaint was the result of legal strategising rather than a spontaneous account. It was further contended that the complainant, being an advocate, was fully aware of legal processes and had initiated several matters against the appellants and others. The defence described the present case as a counterblast to proceedings already commenced by one of the appellants.
On the other hand, the State submitted that the delay was attributable to a “false promise” of marriage, asserting that the accused had also threatened the complainant to withdraw her complaint. The State relied on these assertions to argue against the enlargement of bail.
Justice Anil Kumar, while assessing the material on record, found the complainant’s conduct relevant to determining whether continued custody was warranted. The Court noted the unexplained delay and the surrounding circumstances, observing that the appellants were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations, the evidence presented, and the chronology of events.
The Court stated that “Before parting with this order, this court would like to mention that the opportunities and rights granted to a 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.”
Ultimately, the Court granted bail to Appellants Aznan Khan and Furkan Ilahi, holding that the delay in filing the FIR and the attendant circumstances justified their release pending trial.
Source Link
Picture Source :
