Back
'' Lost, Victim Shuttled: Grants Bail in Case
Lucknow: The last week granted bail to an accused in a case while expressing serious concern over a series of lapses in the medical examination and preservation of forensic evidence concerning an eight-year-old victim. Justice Rajeev Bharti, presiding over the , described the situation as “deeply disheartening” and observed that the lapses represented a “serious failure” in handling vital evidence.
A Tale of Shuttling and Mishandled Evidence
According to the prosecution, on , the accused, Jitendra, allegedly lured the minor victim to a nearby garden on the pretext of giving him a bicycle. The child was subjected to an unnatural sexual act, his clothes were torn, and he was threatened with death. The victim managed to escape and narrated the incident to his family.
What followed was a dismaying saga of systemic failure. The victim was shuffled between multiple hospitals over several days in an attempt to conduct a medical examination. On , he was first taken to the , Mohanlalganj, then referred to , where no examination took place. On , he was sent again to Jhalkari Bai and then referred to – again, no examination. On , he was sent back to CHC, where a basic medical examination was conducted, but an internal examination was refused on the ground that no internal injuries were visible.
The Flawed Medical Examination
When a was finally collected on , it was not properly sealed. The court noted that “the was not properly sealed, resulting in the could not be carried out and the corresponding DNA report also could not be generated.” Consequently, the precious “” for collecting and preserving crucial forensic evidence was lost.
The court remarked: “If the was not available, it was the duty of the Medical In-charge of the concerned Medical Institution to arrange the said Kit from the competent authority, instead of declining to conduct the medical examination of the victim.” No explanation was offered by the State for this serious lapse.
Court’s Indignation: ‘Deeply Disheartening’
Taking a stern view, the court stated that “the victim is a minor child who, instead of being provided prompt, sensitive, and coordinated medical examination, was made to rush from one hospital to another.” It further observed that such lapses “cannot be ignored as routine procedural deficiencies; they represent a serious failure in the handling and preservation of vital evidence in a case involving a minor child.”
The bench also referred to a recent coordinate bench decision in Manoj v. State of U.P. (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315) which highlighted the lack of adequate infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh. The court stressed that the present lapses must be viewed “as part of the larger systemic picture.”
Bail Granted: Reasoning and Conditions
On the merits, the applicant argued that the medical report did not support the prosecution story, there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and he had been in custody since . The investigation was complete, and the requisite report was unavailable.
The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations. However, the court, noting the period of incarceration already undergone, the completion of investigation, and the absence of a proper report, found the case fit for bail. It ordered the release of Jitendra on furnishing a and two , subject to conditions that he not tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the and the for necessary action.
The bail application was allowed by Justice Rajeev Bharti on .
