Allahabad High Court

RAVI @ LUKKAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The bail application is allowed.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ravi @ Lukka in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 70(2), 127(2), 137(2), 351(2) of the IPC and Sections 5G/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed innocence, pointing to discrepancies in the collection and sealing of the victim's clothes and questioning the forensic evidence of blood and spermatozoa. He also highlighted a two‑day delay in filing the FIR and a further 12‑hour delay after the victim’s recovery, arguing that these lapses cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s submissions. After weighing the delay, the alleged mishandling of evidence, and the applicant’s clean record, the Court held that prima facie the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving serious IPC and POCSO offences given the delay in FIR registration
Whether discrepancies in evidence collection (sealing of victim's clothes) justify granting bail
Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and willingness to cooperate affect the bail decision

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 127(2), 137(2), 351(2), 70(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 5G, 6

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
delay in FIR
evidence tampering
POCSO
sexual assault
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41146 of 2025

Ravi @ Lukka
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anshu Singh, Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,
Hemendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Verma, G.A.,
Mahjavi Begam, Sharad Chandra
Srivastava

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.114 out of 269)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Learned State Law Officer has informed that the
notice to the informant has been served on 19.11.2025, but none is present
on behalf of the informant.

2. Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.335 of 2025, under Sections 70(2),
127(2), 137(2), 351(2) BNS and Section 5G/6 POCSO Act, Police Station
Sasnigate, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
true that the FSL report indicates the presence of blood and spermatozoa, but
there is a major discrepancy in the collection of the said clothes. The medical
examination report indicates that the victim did not have any spare clothes;
as such her clothes could not be sealed there and then. The said clothes were
sealed at the police station, and there is every likelihood of interpolation in
the said clothes. Even the presence of blood or spermatozoa does not
indicate the involvement of the applicant.
BAIL No. 41146 of 2025
2

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the FIR itself is
delayed by about 2 days, and the victim was recovered, and even after the
recovery of the victim, the FIR was instituted after a delay of about 12 hours,
and there is no explanation for the said delay. Even the fact that the victim
was under intoxication does not find mention in her statement recorded
under Section 183 BNSS. The complete story seems unbelievable. The
applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 17.07.2025. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the discrepancy in
collecting the clothes of the victim, and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant
has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Ravi @ Lukka, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 14, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…