Rohit Kumar Savita vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105456
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A person accused of sexual offence against a relative may be released on bail during trial where the FIR is delayed, there is an absence of medical corroboration of the alleged incident, and the circumstances of the case warrant it, subject to conditions including furnishing personal bond and sureties, undertaking not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and appearing as required before the trial court. Breach of bail conditions constitutes grounds for cancellation of bail. Observations made by an appellate or bail-granting court in granting bail do not bind or influence the trial court's independent formation of opinion based on witness testimony at trial.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard 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.
3. Applicant 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:
4. The 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.
5. The 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.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 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:
7. The applicant being the uncle of the victim, has ravished his niece, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
CONCLUSION:
8. Considering 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.
9. Let 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. It 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 7, 2026
Shalini
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free