‘SC/ST Act Safeguards Not for Misuse’: Allahabad High Court Flags Victim’s ‘Inappropriate Conduct’

The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to two men accused of committing gang rape and offences under the SC/ST Act in 2016, cautioned that the statutory rights extended to victims cannot be stretched into tools that disrupt judicial proceedings, recording that the complainant, who was herself an advocate, had behaved in a manner the court termed “inappropriate” for someone familiar with court processes.

Court said the safeguards created under the SC/ST Act to ensure participation of victims “should not be misused or abused”.

"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," said the bench of Justice Anil Kumar.

The observations were made during the hearing of appeals filed by Aznan Khan and Furkan Ilahi challenging the rejection of their bail pleas in the case registered in 2025.

Court noted that the complainant appeared with a person she described as a witness, demanded that the entire proceeding be video recorded, objected to the presence of advocates inside the courtroom, and insisted that she or her witness had the right to conduct arguments. She also sought that the hearing be held in camera. Later, when the matter resumed, she stated she had not filed her vakalatnama and needed time to appoint counsel, and verbally claimed she had not received notice.

However, the State produced a report from the Sub-Inspector of Kotwali Dehat, Bulandshahr, stating that the victim had refused to accept the notice when it was brought to her chamber and that when the officer attempted to paste it, she and other advocates objected. The notice was pasted outside her chamber the following day.

The High Court recorded these events while underlining that the participation rights granted to victims cannot be permitted to derail proceedings.

Turning to the appeals, court considered the challenge to the bail rejection orders passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bulandshahr. The FIR in the case, lodged in 2025, alleged that in October 2016 the complainant was taken by Furkan Ilahi from her coaching centre to a hotel and later to the residence of co-accused Aznan Khan, where she was raped. She alleged that physical relations continued on the promise of marriage and that she was forced to consume pills that resulted in termination of a pregnancy. The FIR named 18 accused persons, including four advocates.

The counsel for the appellant argued that the nearly nine-year delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the complainant’s status as an advocate and her past record of initiating multiple criminal cases, showed that the FIR was a result of legal consultation and was filed only after Furkan lodged an FIR against her. They contended that the charge sheet was filed within 15 days, exonerating most accused, and described the complaint as an abuse of the process.

The complainant opposed bail, stating that the delay stemmed from Furkan’s repeated assurances of marriage after the alleged assault. She said conversations between her and the accused, as well as with Furkan’s family, had been recorded. She also disputed the defence claim of a counter-blast, asserting that her FIR preceded Furkan’s FIR. She further alleged that the accused had a criminal history and was exerting pressure on her to withdraw.

After examining the record, the High Court held that the appellants had made out a case for bail having regard to the nature of the accusations, evidence, and their complicity. Court allowed both appeals, set aside the orders rejecting bail, and directed that the appellants be released on personal bonds with two sureties each after verification, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, appearance before the trial court unless exempted, and refraining from committing similar offences. Court stated that breach of any condition would permit the trial court to take coercive action or cancel the bail.

Case Title: Aznan Khan vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: November 24, 2025

Bench: Justice Anil Kumar-X