Allahabad High Court
ROHIT KUMAR SAVITAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the case facts show a delay in FIR, no medical corroboration, and no criminal history.
Summary
Rohit Kumar Savita applied for bail in a case under Sections 64(2)(M), 331(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act, alleging false accusations of rape by his niece. The applicant argued that the FIR was filed 21 days after the alleged incident, there was no medical evidence, and the allegations were motivated by vengeance. The State contended that the familial relationship made bail inappropriate. The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration, and the applicant's clean record, and, without passing on the merits, held that the applicant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, bail was granted subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the alleged offences under the B.N.S.S. and POCSO Act
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of medical evidence justify granting bail
- Whether the familial relationship between the accused and the victim precludes bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- sexual assault
- POCSO
- medical evidence
- family relationship
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14410 of 2026
Rohit Kumar Savita
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunit Kumar, Yatish Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 50 out of 265)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sunit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anshul
Sachan, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri A. Vishwakarma, learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer
and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Sections
64(2)(M), 331(2), 351(3) BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali
Nagar, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. The FIR is delayed by twenty-one days and there is no
explanation of the said delay caused.
5. The allegations are per se false. The victim has inflated the allegations in
her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated
that applicant raped her 3-4 times earlier also. The said allegations have been
foisted on the applicant out of vengeance, as applicant happens to be uncle
of the victim. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
BAIL No. 14410 of 2026
2
24.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
7. The applicant being the uncle of the victim, has ravished his niece, as
such, he is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the
incident and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Rohit Kumar Savita, who is involved in
aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall
not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…