New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious concerns over a recent bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court, in which the judge remarked that the victim “herself had invited trouble” and was also responsible for the alleged rape.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih, while dealing with the matter where it had earlier stayed parts of the judgment, said: “There is another order now by another judge. Yes, bail can be granted. But what is this discussion that ‘she herself invited trouble, etc’? One has to be careful when saying such things.”
The apex court had taken suo moto cognisance of the matter and stayed the impugned portions of the Allahabad High Court's judgment dated March 17, 2025. The court noted that specific paragraphs in the judgment—namely 21, 24, and 26—reflected a total lack of sensitivity and an inhumane approach.
“We are at pains to say that some of the observations made in the impugned order… are totally unknown to the cannons of law and depict a totally insensitive and inhuman approach. We are inclined to stay the said observations,” the court said in its March 26 order.
The suo moto case, titled ‘In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024 and ancillary issues’, was initiated after senior advocate Shobha Gupta wrote to the Chief Justice of India urging intervention. She highlighted disturbing remarks made by the single-judge bench while modifying a lower court’s summoning order in a sexual assault case.
Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court, while deciding on the revision plea filed by the accused, modified the charges framed by the trial court. Originally, the accused were summoned for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape) and Section 18 of the POCSO Act (punishment for attempt to commit an offence). However, the High Court downgraded the charges to Sections 354(b) IPC (assault with intent to disrobe) and Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused—Pawan and Akash—grabbed the victim’s breasts, broke the string of her pyjama, and tried to drag her beneath a culvert. They fled the scene when passersby intervened.
Justice Mishra, in his order, concluded that there was no attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault, a necessary element to establish an attempt to rape. “The allegations levelled against the accused and the facts of the case hardly constitute an offence of attempt to rape,” the order read. The judge also stated that the difference between preparation and an actual attempt lay in the degree of determination, which he felt was not demonstrated in this case.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing in the matter, including the plea filed by the victim’s mother, for four weeks from now.
With IANS inputs