Allahabad High Court
RAMNARESHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was dismissed; the applicant is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Ramnaresh, who is charged under Sections 363, 376AB, 307 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for alleged offences against a six‑year‑old child. The applicant claimed innocence, citing lack of any witness examination, absence of an identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, and a DNA mismatch with the victim. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the serious injury to the child and the nature of the offences. After hearing both sides, the Court found the bail application without merit and rejected it, directing that the trial proceed expeditiously in line with Supreme Court precedents. The order was limited to the bail matter and does not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the charged IPC and POCSO provisions given the alleged lack of identification and DNA evidence.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences against a child precludes the grant of bail.
- Whether the absence of witnesses and a test identification parade affect the bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 9
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 363, 376AB
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 6
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- POCSO
- child victim
- DNA evidence
- identification parade
- fundamental rights
- speedy trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17640 of 2025
Ramnaresh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Sanjeev
Kumar Sahu, Shivangi Bhargava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Jitendra Singh
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 83 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No. 269 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376AB, 307 IPC and 6 POCSO Act,
Police Station Khakhreru, District Fatehpur, with the prayer to enlarge him
on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
applicant is in jail since 7.12.2023 and not a single witness has been
examined to date. There is no test identification parade conducted by the
prosecution as per Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The DNA of the
viral part of the body of the victim does not match with that of the applicant.
His fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India stand violated as there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in
near future. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have
BAIL No. 17640 of 2025
2
vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is injury
sustained by the victim on her vital part. The victim is a baby aged about 6
years only, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. After hearing the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the
parties and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the victim, 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.
7. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.
8. 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.
9. This Court is amazed the way learned counsel for the informant has
opposed the bail application. He has every right to oppose it but he has
failed to produce a single witness during trial. The Court cannot keep its
eyes closed to the said act of the prosecution.
10. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through
the learned District Judge, concerned, by the Registrar (Compliance) by e-
mail/FAX.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 23, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…