The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (February 25) directed the District & Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an inquiry into the disappearance of records in two alleged rape cases. The Court noted that the files had remained untraceable for years and surfaced only after directions were issued for their reconstruction.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the directions while hearing transfer petitions arising from allegations of acid attack and gangrape.
The petitioners alleged that although the police had filed closure reports, the relevant documents were never supplied to the victims.
Court Questions “Sudden” Tracing of Records
The cases relate to Case Crime No. 740/2009 and Case Crime No. 489/2012. In November 2025, the Supreme Court had directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly, to verify the availability of records. Subsequently, in January, the Court ordered reconstruction of missing files.
When the matter was heard on February 25, Advocate-on-Record Shaurya Sahay, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, informed the Court that the records had been traced.
However, the Bench expressed concern over the timing. Justice Datta questioned how the files surfaced immediately after judicial intervention, despite victims seeking access for several years.
Inquiry Ordered Into Possible Obstruction
While noting that tracing of records was a “positive development,” the Court observed that the circumstances raised serious concerns.
The Bench directed the District Judge, Rae Bareilly, to determine whether the disappearance of records resulted from:
- a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice, or
- a genuine human error
The Court also ordered submission of a report within six weeks.
Counsel Flags Similar Instances
Advocate Pragati Neekhra, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that several other cases involved missing records.
The Bench directed that a list of such cases be provided and indicated that further orders would follow, including directions to District Judges to submit status reports.
Background of the Cases
In Case Crime No. 740/2009:
- A closure report was filed on March 6, 2009
- The petitioner filed a protest petition, later registered as a complaint in 2012
- The complaint was dismissed in 2014 due to alleged non-appearance
- The petitioner claims she never received the closure report
In Case Crime No. 489/2012:
- Allegations include acid attack and gangrape
- The Criminal Investigation Department found no prima facie case
- The State claimed the petitioner did not appear despite notices
- A closure report was filed in 2014
However, the State admitted that the closure report was not supplied to the petitioner before being filed in the Supreme Court proceedings.
Court Grants Relief to Petitioner
The Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to file a protest petition. It also directed that her safety and security be ensured by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly.
Additionally, the Court observed that the petitioner may seek assistance from the District Legal Services Authority.
