Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KAMALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that the DNA evidence establishing the applicant as the biological father of the victim's child confirms the rape, rendering the bail application without merit and therefore denying bail.
Summary
The applicant, Santosh Kamal, sought bail in a rape case (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39639 of 2025) where he is alleged to be the biological father of a child born to the victim, as established by DNA testing. He argued that his co‑accused had already been granted bail and that he had no prior criminal record, was cooperative, and therefore deserved bail. The State opposed, contending that the DNA report conclusively proved his paternity, confirming the commission of rape, and thus bail was inappropriate. After considering the DNA evidence, the court found the bail application devoid of merit and rejected it. The court also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments, noting that its observations were limited to the bail matter.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused when DNA evidence establishes his paternity of the victim's child, thereby confirming the commission of rape.
- Whether the bail granted to a co‑accused influences the bail eligibility of the applicant.
- Whether the applicant's lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate affect the decision on bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 115(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 70(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 332, 332B, 351
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 6
Subjects
- bail
- DNA evidence
- rape
- POCSO Act
- co‑accused
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- evidence
- paternity
- trial expeditious
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39639 of 2025
Santosh Kamal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Tiwari, Satish Chandra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Sharma, G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.117 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra
Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer 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.112 of 2025, under Sections 332(B), 70(2), 115(2), 351(2) BNS and
5j(ii)/5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar with
the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the case of applicant is at
par with co-accused Anand Kamal alisa Gadram alias Chhote, who has
already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18636 of 2025. As such, the
applicant is also entitled to bail. The only point of difference is that DNA
profile of the offspring born to the victim matches with that of the applicant,
otherwise the statements of victim recorded U/s 180 & 183 BNSS indicate
similar allegations against both the accused persons. There is no criminal
history of the applicant and he is in jail since 22.3.2025 and is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 39639 of 2025
2
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that
DNA report received from the FSL indicates that the applicant is the
biological father of the offspring born to the victim. As such, the fact that
rape has been committed with her stands established. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the DNA report, which indicates that applicant is the biological father of the
offspring born to 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, without granting unnecessary adjournment to
either party, in accordance with law, 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…