Section 18 SC/ST Act | Delayed FIR, Prior Relationship Evidence Justify Bail in Rape Case : MP HC Gwalior

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to an accused in a rape case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court emphasized the delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix's major status, and evidence suggesting a prior relationship between the parties, while refraining from commenting on the merits of the case.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Deepak Meena, was arrested in connection with FIR/Crime No. 8/2026 dated 18.03.2026, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Guna. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(3), 332(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the appellant raped the victim in 2024 and again on 12.03.2026, with threats preventing her from reporting the incidents earlier.

Key Facts

• The victim, a married woman, alleged rape by the appellant in 2024 and again on 12.03.2026
• The victim did not report the incidents immediately due to threats from the appellant
• The FIR was lodged on 18.03.2026, six days after the second alleged incident
• The appellant was arrested on 20.03.2026 and has been in custody since
• The appellant claimed the prosecutrix was a consenting party and produced photographs to support a long-standing relationship
• The FIR was allegedly lodged with a delay and ulterior motive

Procedural History

• 18.03.2026: FIR registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Guna
• 20.03.2026: Appellant arrested
• 16.04.2026: Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Guna, rejected bail application (B.A. No. 336/2026)
• 06.05.2026: Criminal Appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (CRA-3848-2026)

Relief Sought

The appellant sought bail under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989, arguing innocence, false implication, and the prosecutrix's consent.

The Legal Issue

The primary question before the Court was whether the appellant should be granted bail under the SC/ST Act, considering the delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecutrix's major status, and evidence suggesting a prior consensual relationship.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• The appellant has been falsely implicated and is innocent
• The prosecutrix was a consenting party, as evidenced by photographs showing intimacy
• The FIR was lodged with a delay and ulterior motive
• The appellant is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions imposed by the Court

For the State

• The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations were serious and required custodial interrogation

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed the following key points:

1. Delay in FIR: The first incident of rape was alleged to have occurred in 2024, and the second on 12.03.2026, but the FIR was lodged only on 18.03.2026. The Court noted that this substantial delay would have affected the collection of scientific evidence.

2. Prosecutrix's Major Status: The Court emphasized that the prosecutrix was a major at the time of the alleged offences, which is a relevant factor in assessing consent.

3. Evidence of Prior Relationship: The appellant produced photographs showing intimacy between the parties. The Court noted that the authenticity of these photographs was not challenged, suggesting a prior relationship.

4. No Comment on Merits: The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case while granting bail.

"Merely on the basis of some statements given by the prosecutrix before the police and also before the concerned Magistrate, it would be hard to accept at this stage that there was no consent on the part of prosecutrix who was major at the time of commission of crime and even photographs, the authenticity of which is apparently not being challenged here, show the intimacy in relationship."

The Court concluded that, based on the facts and circumstances, it was appropriate to release the appellant on bail.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the criminal appeal and directed the appellant's release on bail upon furnishing:

• A personal bond of Rs. 50,000
• One solvent surety in the like amount

The appellant was directed to appear regularly before the trial court and abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Delay in FIR Can Impact Bail Considerations

• Courts may consider delays in lodging FIRs as a factor in bail applications, especially when such delays affect the collection of scientific evidence
• Practitioners should highlight delays and their impact on evidence preservation when arguing for bail

Consent and Prior Relationship Evidence

• Evidence suggesting a prior consensual relationship, such as photographs or communications, can be pivotal in bail hearings
• The major status of the prosecutrix may also influence the Court's assessment of consent
• Defence counsel should present such evidence early to strengthen bail applications

Bail Under SC/ST Act Not Automatic

• Despite the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act, bail is not automatically denied if there are mitigating factors such as delay, evidence of consent, or lack of scientific evidence
• Courts may grant bail while refraining from commenting on the merits, leaving the final determination to the trial court