Allahabad HC Grants Bail in 9-Year-Old Gang Rape Case Under SC/ST Act: False Marriage Promises Behind Victim's Delay Exposed

Prayagraj- The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to two key accused in a nine-year-old gang rape case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court's decision in Criminal Appeal Nos. 9437 and 10042 of 2025 sets aside lower court rejections and highlights the complexities of prolonged assurances and investigative lapses in crimes against marginalized communities.

Justice Anil Kumar, presiding over the matter, emphasized the balance between stringent laws and individual liberties, while issuing a stern advisory against the misuse of victim-centric provisions.

The case traces its roots to October 2016 in Bulandshahr district, Uttar Pradesh, where the victim, a practicing advocate since 2013, alleged a harrowing ordeal while heading to a PCS coaching center. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged as Case Crime No. 708 of 2025 at Kotwali Dehat police station, the primary accused, Furkan Ilahi, allegedly lured the 22-year-old woman into his car under the pretense of a ride to the bus stand. He then took her to a hotel and subsequently to the residence of his associate, Aznan Khan, where the duo, along with others, is accused of raping her despite her vehement protests.

The FIR paints a grim picture of coercion, with the victim claiming she was locked inside, assaulted, and later forced to consume pills leading to the termination of her pregnancy. Charges invoked include Section 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 354, 354B, 323, 342, 406, 504, and 506 IPC, and Sections 3(2)5 and 3(1)Da of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, underscoring the caste-based atrocities angle.

Delayed FIR after 9 years

What made the FIR's lodging particularly contentious was the staggering nine-year delay, a point fiercely contested during the bail hearings. Filed initially as a Zero FIR in Ghaziabad on August 19, and later transferred to Bulandshahr, the complaint named 18 accused, including four fellow advocates, amid a backdrop of escalating personal vendettas. The victim asserted that Furkan Ilahi's repeated false marriage promises kept her silent for years, with audio recordings of conversations, including pleas to his family, purportedly backing her claims.

She described a pattern of manipulation: initial consolation post-assault, familial assurances turning sour, and eventual outright rejection by Furkan's brother. Medical examination post-FIR corroborated injuries, while the accused's side painted a narrative of mutual consent twisted into fabrication.

Represented by counsels Ram Raj Pandey and Shubham Pandey for Aznan Khan, and Amar Jeet Singh for Furkan Ilahi, the appellants mounted a robust defense rooted in procedural and evidentiary gaps. They argued that the delayed FIR smacked of "legal consultation" and retaliation, especially since Furkan had preemptively filed Case Crime No. 770 of 2025 against the victim on August 24, 2025, though prosecution clarified the timeline showed the victim's complaint predated it.

Highlighting the victim's "long criminal history" and multiple cross-cases against the accused, the defense portrayed the allegations as an "abuse of process of law," with the advocate-victim allegedly leveraging her professional acumen for undue advantage. No medical check on Furkan post his FIR was noted, contrasting sharply with the victim's prompt examination. The appellants, both in custody since their arrests, urged the high court to intervene, decrying the swift 15-day charge-sheet that mysteriously exonerated several co-accused as evidence of tampered investigation.

Opposition to the bail plea was equally vehement, led by Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) K.K. Gupta, alongside the victim herself and witness Israr Khan, who made a rare personal appearance in court. The victim, invoking SC/ST Act safeguards, demanded video-recorded proceedings, in-camera hearings, and even objected to advocates' presence, insisting on her and the witness's right to argue directly. Chaos ensued when she claimed non-receipt of notice, only for the AGA to produce police reports detailing her refusal to accept it at her chamber, twice attempting service, culminating in affixing it externally amid protests from her and fellow lawyers. The prosecution rubbished delay excuses as deliberate victim-blaming, stressing the psychological trauma of broken vows and familial betrayals. They alleged ongoing threats from the accused's "long criminal history" to coerce withdrawal, and decried the charge-sheet's selective exonerations as investigative manipulation favoring the powerful.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the offenses, noting, "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." Yet, weighing the appellants' complicity against trial-stage evidence, the judge found sufficient grounds for interim relief, observing that the prolonged timeline and cross-allegations warranted deeper probe rather than prolonged detention. In a pivotal quote encapsulating the ruling's rationale, the court stated, "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail."

The decision, however, came laced with caveats and a rare judicial admonition directed at the victim. Justice Kumar released Aznan Khan and Furkan Ilahi on personal bonds with two sureties each, verifiable by the trial court, imposing stringent conditions: no evidence tampering, no witness intimidation, mandatory court appearances, abstinence from similar offenses, and prohibitions on inducements or threats. Breach invites cancellation and coercive action.