The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 25) asked the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, to probe how records in two alleged rape cases went missing for years and reappeared only after the Court ordered reconstruction of the files.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the directions while hearing a batch of transfer petitions linked to allegations of acid attack and gangrape. The petitioners say the police filed closure reports but did not give the key documents to the victims.
Court flags “sudden” tracing after reconstruction order
The two matters are Case Crime No. 740/2009 and Case Crime No. 489/2012. In November 2025, the Supreme Court asked the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, to obtain a Trial Court report on the availability of the records. In January, the Court ordered reconstruction after the records could not be traced.
When the cases came up on February 25, Advocate-on-Record Shaurya Sahay, for Uttar Pradesh, told the Bench that officials had traced the “missing” files. Justice Datta questioned how the records surfaced immediately after the Court stepped in, when the victims had sought access for years.
“This is not done. We have been hearing this matter. When I was sitting with Justice Masih, we heard for almost four days. Madam Neekhra was crying dehours that my file is untraceable, untraceable, untraceable. Now, when we say reconstruct, the files come up,” Justice Datta said.
Court seeks clarity on motive or mistake
The Bench called the tracing of records a “positive development,” but said the timing raised serious concerns. It directed the District Judge, Rae Bareilly, to examine whether someone deliberately tried to block justice or whether the lapse occurred due to human error. The Court asked the District Judge to submit a report within six weeks.
The order records:
“Read the office report dated…it appears that the missing records have been traced out only after this Court had directed reconstruction of missing records. That is indeed a positive development, but the fact is that the records were traced only after judicial intervention. We need to ascertain whether untraceability was attributable to any motivated attempt to obstruct the flow of justice or arose out of genuine human error. We direct the District Judge, Rae Bareilly, to inquire into the matter and submit a report within six weeks.
She points out that for several other cases, the records are missing…The District Judges of so and so are directed to submit a status report with regard to the availability of alleged missing files. The aforesaid may reach this Court within six weeks.”
Counsel cites similar instances; Court asks for a list
Advocate Pragati Neekhra, for the petitioners, told the Court that records had gone missing in several cases. Justice Datta asked her to submit a list. He said the Court would then pass orders calling for status reports in those matters.
Background of the two case crimes
Case Crime No. 740/2009: Police filed a closure report on March 6, 2009. The petitioner-victim later filed a protest petition. The Trial Court registered it as a complaint case in 2012. The complaint case ended in dismissal in 2014, reportedly because the petitioner remained unavailable. The petitioner says officials never supplied the closure report, which stopped her from seeking recall in time.
Case Crime No. 489/2012: This case involves allegations of acid attack and gangrape. Uttar Pradesh said the CID investigated and found no prima facie case against the accused. The State also claimed it issued repeated notices, but the petitioner did not appear and investigators could not record her statement. Officials then filed a closure report in 2014.
However, the State admitted it had not given a copy of the closure report to the petitioner before annexing it with an affidavit in the Supreme Court proceedings. The petitioner says she survived an acid attack and continues to face threats from the accused.
The Supreme Court allowed her to file a protest petition. It also directed the SP, Rae Bareilly, to ensure her safety and security. The Court noted that she could approach the District Legal Services Authority for assistance.
Case Details: XXXXXXX v State of Uttar Pradesh
