Allahabad High Court
ANGAD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied as the forensic evidence rendered the application without merit.
Summary
The applicant, Angad Kumar, filed a bail application in a criminal case (Crime No. 75 of 2025) involving alleged offences under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 351(2), 127(2) of the IPC, and Sections 3(2) and 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution presented a forensic science laboratory report indicating the presence of spermatozoa on the victim's clothing. The Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found the forensic evidence significant and concluded that the bail application lacked merit. Consequently, the bail was denied, and the Court directed that the trial proceed expeditiously, citing Supreme Court precedents. The Court also clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial's merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a sexual assault case where forensic evidence (spermatozoa) links the accused to the victim under the IPC and POCSO provisions.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 115, 127, 351, 65
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 3(2), 4(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- POCSO Act
- forensic evidence
- sexual assault
- expeditious trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37541 of 2025
Angad Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prateek Srivastava, Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shubham Upadhyay, Yadvendra
Singh
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.64 out of 262)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Prateek Srivastava,
learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for
the State. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.75 of 2025, under Sections 65(1), 115(2), 351(2), 127(2) B.N.S. and
3/4(2) POCSO Act, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra with the
prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State and taking into consideration the fact that as per the FSL report,
spermatozoa has been found in the clothes of the victim, as such, I do not
find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The instant bail application
is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
5. 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.
BAIL No. 37541 of 2025
2
6. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
April 2, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…