Allahabad High Court
RAHUL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail and the bail application is allowed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rahul Kumar, who was charged under several IPC provisions and the POCSO Act for allegedly fathering a child with a mentally retarded victim. The prosecution’s case relied on the victim’s identification, but the victim could not clearly describe the incident. The court ordered a forensic DNA test, which showed that the child’s DNA did not match the applicant, and a medical examination found no signs of sexual assault. Taking into account the DNA evidence, the lack of physical evidence, the applicant’s short period of incarceration, and the Supreme Court’s recent guidelines on bail, the court concluded that the applicant was falsely implicated. Consequently, the court granted bail with standard conditions and directed procedural steps for his release. The application was disposed of after granting bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under the POCSO Act and other serious offences.
- Whether the absence of DNA linkage and lack of medical evidence of sexual assault negate the prosecution’s case and justify bail.
- Whether the principles laid down in recent Supreme Court judgments on bail and prison overcrowding apply to this case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(k), 64(2)(m), 65(1)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3/4(2), 5J(ii)/6, 5K/6, 5L/6, 5N/6
Subjects
- bail
- DNA evidence
- POCSO Act
- false implication
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court precedent
- forensic report
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19213 of 2026
Rahul Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jeet Bahadur Gautam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Jeet Bahadur Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 15 of 2026, under
Sections 65(1), 351(3), 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f), 64(2)(k) BNS and Section
5J(ii)/6, 3/4(2), 5L/6, 5N/6, 5K/6 POCSO Act, Police Station- Jansa,
District Varanasi.
3. As per prosecution story, the mother of the victim came to know about
pregnancy about the victim, who is mentally retarded and on being asked,
the victim told the name of the applicant though the victim could not
clearly state about the incident in question. However, she told the name of
the applicant as the person, who established physical relation with her.
4. This matter was heard on 20th July, 2026. On that date, counsel for the
applicant had submitted that there is no DNA report regarding embryonic
tissue of the victim, therefore the applicant has been falsely made
responsible for pregnancy of the victim though the applicant was not
involved in any kind of physical relationship with the victim. Therefore
this Court directed the learned AGA to produce the FSL report regarding
embryonic tissue of the victim.
5. In pursuance of the order of this Court, learned AGA produced the FSL
report showing that the DNA of child, Dev Gautam, who was born to the
BAIL No. 19213 of 2026
2
victim after pregnancy, does not belong to the applicant. These facts show
that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the applicant has
explained the criminal history of two cases in the accompanying affidavit
and he is languishing in jail since 19.01.2026. In case, he is granted bail,
he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the FSL report
as well as medical examination of the victim showing no mark of sexual
assault 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.
9. Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar 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
BAIL No. 19213 of 2026
3
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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. Verification of mobile number as well as Aadhaar Card of the
applicant and sureties should also be conducted by the court concerned.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Varanasi Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal and Trial
Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the orders 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 as well as in the case of Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan
and others vs State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition
(Criminal) No.169 of 2025 decided on 29.05.2026.
16. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
A.Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…