Santosh Kamal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105104
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a DNA report establishes that an accused is the biological father of a child born to the victim, this fact, considered alongside other circumstances of the case, may constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail in proceedings under the POCSO Act, notwithstanding the absence of final conviction. Observations made in the course of deciding a bail application are limited to the facts relevant to that application and shall not be treated as having any bearing on the merits of the case at trial. A court hearing a bail application may direct the trial court to proceed expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments, where no legal impediment exists to such expedited disposal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.112 of 2025, under Sections 332(B), 70(2), 115(2), 351(2) BNS and 5j(ii)/5(L)/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Panki, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Anand Kamal alisa Gadram alias Chhote, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18636 of 2025. As such, the applicant is also entitled to bail. The only point of difference is that DNA profile of the offspring born to the victim matches with that of the applicant, otherwise the statements of victim recorded U/s 180 & 183 BNSS indicate similar allegations against both the accused persons. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 22.3.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that DNA report received from the FSL indicates that the applicant is the biological father of the offspring born to the victim. As such, the fact that rape has been committed with her stands established. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the DNA report, which indicates that applicant is the biological father of the offspring born to the victim, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
7. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
8. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
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