The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Vijay Kumar @ Krishna, an accused in a case under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court observed significant discrepancies in the forensic evidence and delays in DNA testing that compromised the integrity of the investigation. The bail order was passed by Justice Krishan Pahal in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 750 of 2025.
Background
The prosecution alleged that the victim, aged 15 years, had gone to relieve herself at about 7:30 p.m. on March 24, 2021, when she was allegedly assaulted and raped by the applicant and another unidentified person. The FIR was lodged after a delay of 18 hours, which the defense argued lacked any explanation.
During initial investigation, a closure report was filed by the Investigating Officer on April 23, 2021, and proceedings under Section 182 CrPC were also initiated against the victim/informant for lodging a false report. However, the victim and her father later filed a protest petition and a complaint through the CM Portal, leading to further investigation.
Arguments on Behalf of the Applicant
Advocates Akhilesh Singh, Atul Kumar Shahi, Pankaj Singh, and Shivam Yadav, appearing for the applicant, contended:
- The FIR was delayed without justification.
- Medical examination conducted on March 25, 2021, revealed no physical injuries or signs of sexual assault.
- Initial forensic reports did not find any spermatozoa in the vaginal smear.
- Though human blood was found on the underwear and spermatozoa on the lower garment, the inference in the forensic report was vague.
- The forensic report lacked procedural transparency and did not detail the methods of testing.
- The clothes had been stored for over two years before being sent for DNA testing, raising concerns about tampering.
- A DNA report submitted on March 4, 2024, matched the applicant’s semen with the sample found on the victim’s garments, but it was submitted after significant delay and without clear chain of custody.
- An affidavit submitted earlier by the victim and her father stated that no offence was committed, and that the FIR had been lodged under pressure from villagers.
- The FIR was allegedly a counterblast to an incident on the same date where the applicant sustained injuries and the victim’s family members were later charge-sheeted.
It was submitted that the applicant had no prior criminal record, had been in custody since November 16, 2024, and undertook to cooperate with the trial.
Arguments on Behalf of the State and Informant
Advocate Sanjay Mishra and AGA Sunil Kumar, appearing for the State and informant, submitted:
- The FIR was prompt, and as per the high school mark sheet, the victim was a minor (born on April 3, 2005).
- The initial closure report was hurried and filed within 25 days of the incident.
- A writ petition (No. 4858 of 2021) was filed by the victim’s father seeking fair investigation, resulting in the High Court directing police to conduct a fair and impartial probe.
- Pursuant to this, DNA testing of the applicant was undertaken.
- The affidavit disclaiming the offence was allegedly forged, and the victim had denied entering into any compromise.
- Further writ petitions (Nos. 14064 of 2023 and 19095 of 2024) were filed, with the High Court reiterating directions for a fair and expeditious investigation.
- The co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail based on the DNA report, which specifically pointed towards the applicant, reinforcing the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Observations and Findings
The Court noted serious anomalies and contradictions in the forensic reports and observed:
“A serious anomaly exists between the two forensic reports on record. The DNA report, which appears to support the prosecution’s version of events, is rendered unreliable due to an undue and unexplained delay in forwarding the samples for forensic examination.”
The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the chain of custody and cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra:
“The delay in sending the samples is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out.”
The Court also relied on judgments including Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Rahul v. State of NCT of Delhi, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, and Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, to caution against uncritical reliance on delayed forensic reports.
The Court concluded:
“The DNA report has to be treated with extreme caution, at the time of adjudication of bail, in the interest of justice and to uphold the principles of fairness.”
Decision
Granting bail to Vijay Kumar @ Krishna, the Court held:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case… the delay in institution of FIR, contradictory forensic reports, delay in forensic analysis, and absence of corroboration from medical examination… the applicant has made out a case for bail.”
The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including:
- No tampering with evidence during trial.
- No intimidation of prosecution witnesses.
- Regular appearance before the trial court.
The Court clarified that observations made while granting bail would not affect the trial court’s independent assessment of evidence.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar @ Krishna vs State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 750 of 2025
