Allahabad High Court
CHHATRAPAL @ LATURI @ LATURI BABA @ KAUSHAL GIRIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Chhatrapal, accused in Crime No. 68 of 2026 for offences under the B.N.S. and the POCSO Act, including alleged rape of a minor, administration of sedatives, and a resulting pregnancy that was later terminated. The victim, a girl of about 15‑17 years, alleged repeated rapes and confinement at the accused's ashram, with statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. The forensic laboratory report could not determine the DNA source of the fetus due to insufficient profiling. The applicant argued lack of material evidence, prior FIRs, and that the charge‑sheet had been filed, seeking bail. The State opposed, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s age. After weighing the facts, the Court declined to grant bail and ordered an enquiry into the forensic scientist’s report.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged rape of a minor, administration of sedatives, and an inconclusive DNA report.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- minor victim
- DNA evidence
- forensic laboratory
- pregnancy termination
- sedative administration
- scientist enquiry
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23687 of 2026
Chhatrapal @ Laturi @ Laturi Baba @ Kaushal
Giri .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vishvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Vishvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Roshan Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
65(1), 74, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 5(f), 5(j)(2), 5(1)/6 of POCSO
Act, Police Station Dauki, District Agra, during the pendency of the trial.
3. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 20.07.2026, learned
A.G.A. has produced the FSL report regarding the origin of the pregnancy
of the victim. As per the said report, the origin of the pregnancy of the
victim could not be determined due to insufficient generation of the DNA
profile.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that prior to the
lodging of the present FIR, the father of the victim had lodged an FIR on
02.09.2025 as Case Crime No. 332 of 2025, under Sections 137 and 87 of
the B.N.S., Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurugram (Haryana), wherein
it was alleged that the applicant, being a close relative, persuaded the
daughter of the first informant to take gurudakshina from the applicant,
who is a self-claimed godman, to get her admitted to his Ashram.
Subsequently, the victim girl was returned back and a final report was
submitted after considering the statements of the victim and the first
BAIL No. 23687 of 2026
2
informant. Thereafter, the present FIR was lodged alleging that the
applicant had again enticed away the daughter of the first informant and,
when the victim returned, she was found to be pregnant. The victim
disclosed that the applicant had administered sedative injections and
drugs to her and committed rape on her repeatedly. In her statements
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, the victim made
specific allegations that the applicant as well as co-accused Bhoopi had
kept her forcibly confined at the Ashram, administered sedatives through
injections and committed rape upon her on several occasions, which
resulted in her pregnancy and she is having pregnancy of about three
months. However, the pregnancy was terminated on 25.04.2026. It is
further submitted that the victim herself had left her house along with the
applicant and she is about 17 years of age. There is no material against the
applicant to establish that he had committed rape upon the victim. It is
further submitted that the applicant has explained his criminal history of
one case. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case and, therefore, there is no requirement for further custodial
interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and has been
languishing in jail since 04.05.2026. In case the applicant is granted bail,
he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that the victim aged about 15 years, in her statements
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, made specific
allegations that the applicant and co-accused Bhoopi administered
sedatives and drugs to her and committed rape upon her in the Ashram of
the applicant. It is further submitted that when she tried to talk to her
parents, she was mercilessly beaten. After being subjected to rape, the
victim fell ill and was admitted by the applicant in Ganga Ram Hospital.
After being discharged from the hospital, she was again subjected to rape
after being administered drugs through injections. Therefore, the applicant
is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account the
statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the
BAIL No. 23687 of 2026
3
BNSS, coupled with the fact that the pregnancy of the victim was
terminated on 25.04.2026, though the origin of the pregnancy could not
be determined due to insufficient generation of the DNA profile, this
Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is
hereby rejected.
8. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
9. It is surprising that despite the availability of the fetus of the victim, the
FSL, Agra, has submitted a report stating that, due to insufficient
generation of the DNA profile, the source of DNA of the fetus could not
be traced, which, prima facie, appears to be incorrect and raises serious
concerns regarding the competence of the concerned Scientist of the FSL,
Agra, or the possibility of some oblique motive in preparing such kind of
report.
10. Accordingly, the Additional Director General (Technical Services),
U.P., Lucknow is directed to conduct an enquiry against the Scientist who
prepared the said report. While conducting the enquiry against the
concerned Scientist of the FSL, Agra, the Additional Director General
(Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow shall also take into account the fact
that once the fetus of the victim and the blood sample of the applicant
were available with the FSL, Agra, it is difficult to understand how the
source of DNA of fetus could not be determined on the ground of
insufficient generation of the DNA profile.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional Director
General (Technical Services), U.P., Lucknow, through the Registrar
(Compliance).
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 14, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…