ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.7 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).19614/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-11-2025 in CRA No. 3775/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]

BOBI PAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)

FOR ADMISSION IA No. 313398/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 11-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Yogender Singh, Adv.

Mr. Kartik Devans, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.

Ms. Sharvi Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.

Ms. Hemlata Rawat , AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Signature Not Verified1. Our last order dated 28.01.2026 reads thus:-

Digitally signed by MOHD IBRAHIM Date: 2026.03.14

13:42:32 IST “1. Our order dated 9-1-2026 reads thus:-

Reason:

“1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Our last order dated 8.12.2025 reads thus:-

“1. Issue notice.

2. List the matter on 09.01.2026.

3. In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 599 of 2025 dated 03.10.2025 registered with Police Station Thakurganj, District-Lucknow (Old FIR No. 0387 of 2025 dated 14.09.2025 registered with Police Station Dubagga) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 89, 123, 316(2), 351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he shall be enlarged on bail by the Investigating Officer. This is, however, subject to the petitioner cooperating with the Investigating Officer during the investigation.”

3. Today when the matter was taken up for further hearing, we inquired with the learned counsel appearing for the petitioneraccused whether he appeared before the Investigating Officer or not. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 10.12.2025, and his statement was also recorded.

4. According to the learned counsel, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 08.12.2025, referred to above, the petitioner also came to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond before the Investigating Officer.

5. It was also brought to our notice that the investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed. However, the case is yet to be committed to the Court of Sessions.

6. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that there is a gross delay of more than two years in lodging the FIR. The allegations are palpably false. The FIR came to be lodged by the victim on account of a civil dispute.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the victim (complainant) submitted that material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner.

8. The victim is a 40% disabled lady.

9. She further brought to our notice that there is a video clipping on the basis of which the petitioner kept on blackmailing the victim, and for a period of more than 2 years the petitioner kept on abusing her sexually.

10. She further submitted that many provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”) including Section 308 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNS, 2023”) have not been taken into consideration by the Police.

11. We also heard Mr.Shaurya Sahay, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

12. Prima facie, it appears that the learned counsel appearing for the State has not been instructed properly. 13. He has no idea whether the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer or not.

14. In such circumstances, referred to above, we direct the Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this C