Rohit Kumar Savita v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14410 of 2026

Court No. - 65 (Sl. No. 50 out of 265) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Sunit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anshul Sachan, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri A. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 13 of 2026, under Sections 64(2)(M), 331(2), 351(3) BNS and 5L/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶4The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by twenty-one days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶5The allegations are per se false. The victim has inflated the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that applicant raped her 3-4 times earlier also. The said allegations have been foisted on the applicant out of vengeance, as applicant happens to be uncle of the victim. There is no medical corroboration of the incident.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunit Kumar, Yatish Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rohit Kumar Savita .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

24.1.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

¶7The applicant being the uncle of the victim, has ravished his niece, as such, he is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION:

¶8Considering 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 FIR; there being no medical corroboration of the incident and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9Let the applicant-Rohit Kumar Savita, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. May 7, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 14410 of 2026 (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad