SC/ST Act Not To Be 'Misused': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In FIR Filed After 9-Year Delay, Flags Rape Victim's 'Inappropriate' Conduct

Gratin bail to two accused in the FIR involving allegations of rape and offences under the SC-ST Act 1989, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that the rights granted to a victim under the special legislation "should not be misused and abused". A Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X granted bail to appellants [Aznan Khan and Furkan Ilahi], primarily factoring in the unexplained delay of 9 years in lodging the FIR and noting the 'inappropriate' conduct of the victim, a practicing advocate herself.Case in brief Briefly put, the victim lodged FIR this year alleging that in 2016, the appellant (Furkan) met her, took her to a hotel and subsequently to the residence of his friend (Aznan Khan/appellant-coaccused). She alleged that while Aznan bolted the door from outside, Furkan committed rape upon her. It was her case that she remained silent as she was persuaded by Furkan's assurance that he would marry her. The victim further alleged that the accused continued to have physical relations with her on this pretext and forced her to consume pills which resulted in the termination of her pregnancy. The accused-appellant moved the HC after their bail pleas were rejected by the Special Court. In the HC, their counsel argued that the FIR was lodged after a massive delay of 9 years which was sufficient to show that the case was filed after "legal consultation". It was highlighted that out of 18 accused persons named in the FIR, 4 are advocates. Significantly, the counsel also pointed out that the victim herself is an advocate with a "long criminal history" and that she has lodged several cases against the appellants and others. It was also contended that the present FIR was a counterblast as one of the appellants had already lodged an FIR against the victim in August this year. The bench was apprised that the victim lodged the present FIR, merely twenty days later an FIR was lodged against her. However, on the other hand, AGA KK Gupta, along with the victim and witness Israr Khan, vehemently argued that the delay was due to the 'false promise' of marriage. It was also argued that the accused were threatening her to withdraw from the prosecution. High Court's observations The High Court took specific note of the victim's conduct during the bail hearing. The order records that the victim, along with a witness (an Advocate), appeared before the Court and demanded that the entire proceeding be video recorded. In fact, she also objected to the presence of other advocates in the courtroom as she argued that proceedings of such a "sensitive matter" should not be carried out in their presence. But when the case was taken up for hearing at 3:00 pm, the victim submitted that she has not filed her vakalatnama. She, therefore, sought time to engage another advocate for argument. When a pointed query was raised as to whether notice was served upon her, she verbally refused, stating that no such notice was received. However, the State counsel produced a report from the concerned SHO which stated that when the officer went to the victim's chamber to serve the notice, she refused to accept it. Furthermore, when he attempted to paste the notice outside her chamber, the victim and other advocates objected and became agitated and they forced the officer to leave. Justice Anil Kumar-X, taking note of her conduct, though did not make comments on the merits to prevent prejudice to the trial, he found that the appellants had made out a case for bail given the facts, the nature of the offence and the evidence. However, in a significant observation regarding the invocation of the SC/ST Act, the Court remarked: "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". The Court also expressed disapproval of the victim's behavior, stating: "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". Accordingly, the Court set aside the bail rejection orders passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahar and directed the release of accused on bail. Case title - Aznan Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected matterCitation :Click Here To Read/Download Order

SC/ST Act Not To Be 'Misused': Allahabad HC Grants Bail In FIR Filed After 9-Year Delay, Flags Rape Victim's 'Inappropriate' Conduct

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags