Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 96119
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13242 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narayan Singh(Kushwaha)
For the Respondents: G.A., Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, Shubham Dwivedi
An accused is entitled to bail when the prosecution's case is weakened by delayed identification in the FIR and scientific evidence, specifically DNA profiling, is inconclusive due to inadequate forensic infrastructure of the State.
Headnote:(A) Bail - Criminal Law - Evaluation of evidence for grant of bail - Delay in naming the accused in the FIR and contradictions in eyewitness statements creating doubt over the prosecution story justifies enlargement on bail. (Para 3, 4)
(B) Forensic Evidence - DNA Profiling - Absence of incriminating scientific evidence - When the FSL report fails to match the DNA of the accused with the sample found in the victim's vaginal smear, the accused is entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the offence. (Para 14, 15)
(C) State Liability - Forensic Infrastructure - Non-generation of DNA profiles due to outdated machinery and staff vacancies in State FSLs - Failure of State infrastructure to provide conclusive scientific evidence cannot be used to keep an accused in custody. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case of rape and murder where scientific evidence (DNA) is inconclusive and eyewitness testimony is delayed.
Dwivedi
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Naryan Singh (Kushwaha), learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the first
informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.199 of 2025, under Sections-
66(1), 103(1), 238, BNS, Police Station-Sakeet, District-Etah, during
the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the
prosecution story, the deceased left the house on 18.11.2025 at 4:00
pm towards the agriculture land to throw the cow dung, when she did
not return, the family members started searching her and the body of
the deceased was found near the river. The inquest was also
conducted on 18.11.2025 wherein the alleged eyewitness, Satendra
was also the witness of the inquest. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged
on 19.11.2025 against unknown persons. On the next date,
statement of the first informant has been recorded wherein he made
allegation on the basis of information received from one Satendra that
he had seen the present applicant going towards the river and then
returning from that side in a wet cloth. The statement of Satendra was
also recorded on 20.11.2025 in which he had stated that he had seen
the applicant on 18.11.2025 while he was going towards the river
where the body of the deceased found and thereafter, returning in a
wet cloth. The statements of other eyewitnesses were also recorded
on 21.11.2025 and on pointing out of the applicant, one watch of the
deceased was alleged to be recovered from the open field.
BAIL No. 13242 of 2026
2
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that had the
eyewitness Satendra seen the applicant on 18.11.2025 then this fact
would have been told by him to the first informant on 18.11.2025 itself
and the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR which
was lodged on 19.11.2025. Subsequent statements of Satendra and
other eyewitnesses create doubt over the prosecution story. It is also
submitted mere recovery of one watch which is alleged to belong to
the deceased cannot be an evidence against the applicant regarding
his involvement in the rape and murder of the deceased. It is further
submitted that even as per the FSL report produced by the learned
AGA today in pursuance of the order dated 14.05.2026, DNA of the
applicant does not match with the DNA found in the vaginal smear of
the deceased. There is no incriminating material against the
applicant, he has been falsely implicated on the basis of
apprehension and doubt. It is further submitted that the applicant has
no criminal history. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is
languishing in jail since 21.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned
A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking
into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant
of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Manoj, involved in the aforementioned crime be
released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concern
