Allahabad High Court

DISU RAI ALIAS SUMIT RAIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL

Holding

The court held that the lack of forensic linkage, delayed witness testimonies, and statutory bail guidelines outweigh the seriousness of the alleged offences, justifying the grant of bail.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Disu Rai (Sumit Rai), accused of rape and alleged suicide of a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that the FIR was based solely on the mother’s allegation, there was no forensic evidence linking him to the crime, DNA tests were negative, and key eyewitness statements were recorded after a 28‑day delay. The prosecution highlighted injuries on a co‑accused, alleged motive, and eyewitnesses who claimed the applicant left the scene. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding delayed witness testimony, lack of incriminating evidence, and the need to decongest prisons, the court granted bail without expressing a view on guilt. The bail was conditioned on personal bond, sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged rape and suicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act.
Whether the absence of forensic DNA match and the delayed recording of eyewitness statements create reasonable doubt warranting bail.
Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences outweighs the statutory and policy considerations favoring bail.
Application of Supreme Court and High Court precedents on bail jurisprudence in sexual offence cases.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 351(3), 70(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 5(g)/6, 5(j)(ii)/6, 5(m)/6
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)

Subjects

rape
suicide
bail
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
POCSO Act
DNA evidence
delayed witness testimony
jail overcrowding
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15575 of 2026

Disu Rai Alias Sumit Rai
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prakhar Saran Srivastava, Shashi
Bhushan Kunwar, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Kumar Gupta

Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Shashi Bhushan Kunwar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pramod
Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri D.P.S.
Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in graciously be pleased to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0161 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
70(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 5(j)(ii) /6,
5(g)/6, 5(m)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR,
mother of the deceased has made allegation that all the accused persons
including the present applicant committed rape upon her daughter and
hanged her showing it a case of suicide. During the investigation, mother
of the deceased reiterated the story of FIR but did not mention any eye
witness regarding incident in question. Subsequently, the accused persons
were arrested and it was found that co-accused Ramji Rai was having
injury on his private part but the present applicant did not have any injury
on private part though the post mortem report of the deceased shows that
rape was also committed before hanging. After 28 days, one Maya Devi
as well as Chitranjan Ram recorded their statements on 15.07.2025 and
02.08.2025 mentioning therein that immediately after the incident, they
had seen the applicant and other co-accused persons have left the house of
BAIL No. 15575 of 2026
2

the deceased hurriedly.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even the DNA of the
applicant does not match with DNA of vaginal smear found on the body
of the deceased. It is further submitted that no one has seen the applicant
entering or leaving the house of the deceased and two eye witnesses Maya
Devi and Chitranjan Ram were introduced after 28 days of the incident
without any explanation. They have simply mentioned that they had seen
the accused persons including the applicant hurriedly leaving the house of
the deceased after the alleged incident. He further submitted that eye
witness Maya Devi in her statement stated that on the next date of
incident, she has informed the mother of the deceased that the accused
persons had left the house of the deceased hurriedly but this fact was not
mentioned either in the FIR or in the statement of first informant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Panda Nana Kare vs State of
Maharashtra reported in 1980(1) SCC 131, wherein the Apex Court
has observed that non disclosing assailant's name immediately can be
ground to discard the prosecution story. He has also relied upon the
judgement of this Court in the case of Rohit Patel vs state of U.P.; 2026
LiveLaw (AB) 194, wherein this Court observed that recording the
statement of witnesses after considerable delay without reasonable
explanation may doubt the prosecution story. It is lastly submitted that
charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no
requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has explained the
criminal history of one case in the accompanying affidavit and he is
languishing in jail since 10.07.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that co-accused Ramji Rai was
having motive to commit the rape and injuries were also found on his
private part and the present applicant is also family members of the Ramji
Rai and there are eyewitness stating that the applicant is also
accompanied the co-accused Ramji Rai immediately after the incident.
Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail
BAIL No. 15575 of 2026
3

6. Per contra, learned AGA also adopted the argument of the first
informant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline
of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Disu Rai @ Sumit Rai involved in the
aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

i. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
BAIL No. 15575 of 2026
4

verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

11. Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the
applicant and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.

12. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking
that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

13. It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.

14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Mau Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24 hours in
compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy
for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.Kr.

Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…