SC/ST Act Bail | Consensual Long-Term Relationship Undermines Allegation of Identity Concealment : Allahabad HC

In a significant ruling on bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Allahabad High Court has underscored the importance of evaluating the nature of relationships and evidence consistency before denying bail. The Court allowed the appeal against a bail rejection order, holding that a long-standing consensual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix prima facie negates allegations of identity or religion concealment.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Abid, was accused in Case Crime No. 385 of 2025 under Sections 69 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. The allegations stemmed from an FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, who claimed that the appellant had concealed his identity and religion, leading to a non-consensual relationship. The appellant, however, contended that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix and her family were aware of his Muslim identity.

Key Facts

• The appellant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship for a considerable period, during which the prosecutrix resided in the appellant’s house voluntarily.
• The prosecutrix’s mother, in her statement recorded during the investigation, admitted that the family was aware of the appellant’s Muslim identity and that their objection was based on religious and caste differences.
• The initial written complaint and the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 180 BNSS did not allege concealment of identity or religion. The allegation surfaced only in her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS.
• No injury marks were found on the prosecutrix, and there was no independent witness or corroborative evidence supporting the alleged occurrence.
• The FIR was lodged after a considerable delay, for which no satisfactory explanation was provided.
• The appellant has no criminal history and has been in judicial custody since 22.10.2025.

Procedural History

• Case Crime No. 385 of 2025: Registered under Sections 69, 115(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act at Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.
• Bail Application No. 271 of 2026: Filed before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, seeking bail. The application was rejected on 19.01.2026.
• Criminal Appeal No. 1740 of 2026: Filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the bail rejection order.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought the setting aside of the impugned bail rejection order dated 19.01.2026 and prayed for his release on bail in the aforesaid case.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the allegations of concealment of identity and religion under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act could sustain a denial of bail, particularly when the evidence prima facie indicated a long-standing consensual relationship between the parties and the absence of corroborative material supporting the prosecution’s case.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• The appellant was falsely implicated, and the relationship with the prosecutrix was consensual and long-standing.
• The appellant never concealed his identity or religion, as evidenced by the statement of the prosecutrix’s mother during the investigation.
• The allegation of concealment was absent in the initial complaint and the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 180 BNSS, surfacing only later in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, which was unreliable.
• No injury marks were found on the prosecutrix, and there was no independent witness or corroborative evidence.
• The FIR was lodged after considerable delay, and the appellant has no criminal history.

For the Respondent

The State opposed the appeal and bail prayer but did not dispute the factual submissions regarding the long-standing relationship between the parties, the statement of the prosecutrix’s mother, or the absence of the appellant’s criminal history.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case itself indicated a long-standing acquaintance between the parties. The statement of the prosecutrix’s mother, recorded during the investigation, prima facie established that the family was aware of the appellant’s Muslim identity and that their objection was based on religious and caste differences, not concealment.

The Court further noted that the allegation of concealment of identity or religion did not appear in the initial written complaint or the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 180 BNSS. It surfaced only in her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS, raising doubts about its reliability.

"The statement of the prosecutrix's mother recorded during investigation prima facie reflects that the family members of the prosecutrix were aware that the appellant belonged to the Muslim community and that their objection to the relationship stemmed from the difference in religion and caste."

The Court also considered the absence of injury marks on the prosecutrix and the lack of independent witnesses or corroborative evidence. Given these circumstances, the Court held that the appellant’s continued detention was not justified, particularly as he had no criminal history and had been in judicial custody since 22.10.2025.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned bail rejection order dated 19.01.2026 was set aside. The appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The appellant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or harm/harass the victim/complainant.
2. The appellant shall abide by the Court’s orders, attend hearings on every date, and not delay the trial.
3. The appellant shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present.
4. The appellant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. In case of misuse, the trial Court may initiate proceedings under Section 209 BNS/174-A IPC.
5. The appellant shall remain present in person before the trial Court on dates fixed for opening the case, framing of charge, and recording of statement under Section 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. Absence may be treated as abuse of bail liberty.
6. The trial Court shall endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.

The sureties’ identities and residential proofs shall be verified by the concerned court, and any breach of conditions may result in cancellation of bail.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Consensual Relationships Undermine SC/ST Act Allegations

• Courts may now scrutinize allegations under the SC/ST Act more closely where the parties have a history of consensual relationships. The mere existence of a relationship, especially when acknowledged by family members, can prima facie negate claims of identity concealment or coercion.
• Practitioners should emphasize the duration and nature of the relationship, as well as any statements or evidence from family members or acquaintances that corroborate the consensual nature of the association.

Delay and Evidence Consistency Are Critical

• Delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case, particularly in offences under the SC/ST Act.
• The absence of injury marks, independent witnesses, or corroborative evidence can further tilt the balance in favour of bail, as seen in this case.

Bail Conditions Reflect Judicial Caution

• The stringent bail conditions imposed by the Court reflect a balance between granting liberty and ensuring the appellant’s compliance with the trial process. Practitioners should note that:
  • Undertakings not to seek adjournments are now enforceable, with non-compliance potentially leading to bail cancellation.
  • The trial Court retains the power to initiate proceedings for abuse of bail liberty, including under Section 209 BNS/174-A IPC.
  • Expeditious trial is a priority, and courts may impose timelines for conclusion of proceedings.