Allahabad High Court
TULSIDAS RAJBHAR ALIAS JHINAKversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was dismissed as the court found no merit to grant bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Tulsidas Rajbhar, who is charged under Sections 64(1), 352, 351(3) BNS and 5J(2)/6 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a woman who later gave birth to a child. The applicant contested the paternity of the child and sought DNA testing, while the victim, a consenting party, alleged that the applicant had ravished her and that her life was ruined. The FIR was lodged more than seven months after the alleged incident, and the court noted the delay without satisfactory explanation. The State argued that the seriousness of the offence and the victim's allegations preclude bail, whereas the applicant claimed he would cooperate with the trial and not misuse liberty. After weighing the facts, the court found the bail application devoid of merit and rejected it, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the POCSO Act when the FIR is delayed and the victim alleges rape.
- Whether the applicant's challenge to paternity and request for DNA testing affect the bail consideration.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offence outweighs the applicant's claim of cooperation with the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5J(2), 6, 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- rape
- paternity dispute
- DNA testing
- delayed FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15187 of 2026
Tulsidas Rajbhar Alias Jhinak
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Manu Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 44 out of 269)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice
has been served to the informant on 3.5.2026.
2. Heard Sri Manu Sharma, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjeev
Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri J.K. Chaurasia,
learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.46 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 352, 351(3) BNS and 5J(2)/6 of
POCSO Act, Police Station Nautanwa, District Maharajganj, with the
prayer to enlarge him on bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that applicant has challenged
the paternity of the foetus in the womb of the victim. The wife of the
applicant had moved applications before the investigating officer for getting
the DNA analysis of the foetus to ascertain whether it matched with that of
the applicant.
5. The victim is the consenting party. The FIR is delayed by more than
seven months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The
only bone of contention is that applicant refused to marry her. The
applicant himself is a married person, as such, it is not possible for him to
marry her till the subsistence of his earlier marriage.
BAIL No. 15187 of 2026
2
6. The counsel for the applicant has just received instructions that victim
has given birth to a baby and the DNA samples are being collected.
7. The applicant is in jail since 21.3.2026 and 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:
8. The victim has categorically alleged that she was ravished by the
applicant and her life has been ruined, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that victim has categorically stated that she was ravished by the
applicant and as per the statement of counsel for the applicant, she has
delivered a child and the life of the victim stands ruined as applicant himself
has challenged the paternity of the said child, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible, if there is no legal
impediment.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
12. The Registrar Compliance is directed to transmit a copy of this order
to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…