Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar @ Jaidev vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 25 November, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:77124
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
RESERVED ON 31.10.2025
DELIVERED ON 25.11.2025
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3416 of 2025
Amit Kumar @ Jaidev
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Aditya Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Vijay Nath Pandey
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1.Heard Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rajeev Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Vijay Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the record.
2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 11.4.2024 at about 2.00p.m., the niece of the complainant was enticed by the accused persons, named in the first information report, and was raped in an abandoned house and threatened that if she tells this at her home, then she and her brother will be killed. It is further alleged that the victim told the informant and then he came to know. The victim is 13 years old.
3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity between the family of the accused applicant and the family of the victim. The victim was medically examined at district hospital, Gonda on 13.4.2025 where no mark of external injury was found. No conclusive opinion was given about sexual intercourse. The supplementary medical report has also not given any definite opinion about any sexual assault.
He further submits that the applicant was medically examined by the investigating officer and DNA was collected and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for pathological and scientific analysis, however, no DNA or FSL report is there to suggest that rape was committed by the applicant. In this context, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar Malik versus State of Haryana (2011)7 SCC 130 where while dealing with an identical issue where the investigating officer has failed to seek a DNA report under section 53-A CrPC and consequently, the court gave its benefit to the accused.
Although male semen were found, however, they were not sent for analysis in the forensic laboratories which could have conclusively proved beyond any shadow of doubt with regard to the commission of offence. The applicant is in jail since 12.4.2024.
It is also submitted that before the alleged incident, the accused applicant had met an accident where he has received grievous injuries on his hand while threshing wheat, and fractured his index finger.
It is further submitted that the prosecution story is inconsistent. Name of two accused appeared in the first information report. However, name of the co-accused Anoop went missing in the statement of the prosecutrix under section 161 and again reappeared in the statement under section 164 CrPC.
It is further submitted that from the statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that on the date of the incident, she was playing with her brother and sister when the incident happened. Thus, both the brother and sister of the prosecutrix were the material witnesses, however, the investigating officer has not examined them. He has relied on judgments of Supreme Court in this context in Manoharlal versus State of M.P. (2014)15 SCC 587 (emphasis at para 9) and Takhaji Hiraji versus Thakore Kubersing Chamansing (2001)6 SCC 145 (relevant para 19).
It is thus submitted that an adverse inference against the prosecution case must be drawn for not examining the material eye witnesses of the incident. The injuries suffered by the applicant in his hand two days before the incident has been admitted by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 CrPC.
It is submitted that the prosecutrix has undergone medical test and as per medico legal report, no definite opinion about sexual assault was given. No spermatozoa were found either in the medical report of the District Hospital, Gonda or of the Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow.
The co-accused Anoop Kumar alias Lallu has been granted bail vide order dated 7.3.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in Bail No.6877 of 2024. The order has been filed at page 92 of the paper book.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
4.Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that the age of the victim and her statements are enough for rejection of the bail application. It is a heinous offence. The fact witnesses have been examined, including the prosecutrix.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the sister and brother of the prosecutrix who were material witnesses have not been examined by the investigating officer, there is lack of any DNA or FSL report to suggest that rape was committed by the applicant, non-compliance of provisions of Section 53-A CrPC, the fact witnesses have been examined, in the medico legal examination, no definite opinion about sexual assault has been given, bail order of the co-accused Anoop, judgments of Supreme Court, referred to above, as also the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
6.Let the applicant Amit Kumar alias Jaidev, involved in Case Crime No. 144 of 2024 under sections 376 D.B., 506 I.P.C, 5(G)(M)/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Paraspur, district Gonda, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.
7.The application is allowed accordingly.
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
November 25, 2025
kkb/
