Victim Rushed Hospital to Hospital, Swab Kit Unsealed: Allahabad HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case Citing Systemic FSL Failure

The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench granted bail to a POCSO accused after finding that the eight-year-old victim was shuttled between hospitals without a proper medical examination, the anal swab kit was returned unsealed to the police station, and DNA analysis could never be undertaken.

Justice Rajeev Bharti, sitting singly at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, granted bail on 18 August 2026 to one Jitendra, who stands accused in a POCSO matter registered at Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. The order arose from a first bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 221 of 2026. While disposing of the application in favour of the accused, the Court placed on record a detailed critique of how the State and its medical institutions handled — or failed to handle — the forensic evidence collected from an eight-year-old victim. The Court found that the “precious golden hour for the collection and preservation of crucial forensic evidence was lost.”

The Allegations and the FIR

Case Crime No. 117 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, under Sections 115(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 5M and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

According to the prosecution case as set out in the FIR, on 13 April 2025 at around 7:00 p.m., Jitendra, a resident of village Belhiyakheda, allegedly lured the eight-year-old victim to a nearby garden on the pretext of offering him a bicycle. The accused allegedly subjected the victim to an unnatural sexual act, tore his clothes, and threatened to kill him. The victim managed to escape and returned home, where he narrated the incident to his family.

Jitendra was arrested on 29 May 2025 and has remained in custody since. A chargesheet was subsequently filed upon completion of investigation.

A Status Report That Exposed Systemic Failure

When the matter came up before Justice Bharti, the State had not filed the FSL report in its counter-affidavit. The Court had granted time vide an earlier order dated 3 August 2026 for the State counsel to produce the FSL report. When the status report was eventually filed, the Court described itself as “surprised to see such grave lapses on the part of the Medical Officer.”

The status report, reproduced in the order in Hindi, told a damaging story. On 14 April 2025, the day after the alleged incident, the victim was sent to CHC Mohanlalganj for medical examination. He was referred to Jhalkari Bai Hospital, where no examination could be conducted. On 15 April 2025, he was sent back to Jhalkari Bai Hospital, from where he was referred to Civil Hospital Lucknow. Again, no examination was done there either. On 17 April 2025, he was sent once more to CHC Mohanlalganj, where some examination occurred, but he was then sent onward to Civil Hospital Lucknow for internal examination — which was also not conducted, reportedly because internal injuries were not found on the victim's body.

On 19 April 2025, the victim was taken yet again to CHC Mohanlalganj. On this occasion, a swab was collected using a Swab Kit, but the kit was returned to the police station and placed in the malkhana. After Jitendra's arrest on 29 May 2025, a blood sample and DNA material from the accused were collected at CHC Mohanlalganj. The Swab Kit and the accused's sample were then to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. However, the anal swipe inside the Swab Kit was found to be unsealed. Because the kit was incomplete and improperly sealed, the FSL declined to accept the material. As a result, the DNA analysis was never carried out and no DNA report could be generated.

The Court's Assessment of the Medical and Forensic Breakdown

Justice Bharti did not treat the gaps as minor procedural shortcomings. The order drew a clear line between the absence of visible injuries on the victim's body and the duty of medical institutions to conduct an examination regardless. The Court held that if the Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit (SAECK) was not available, it was the duty of the Medical In-charge of the concerned institution to arrange the kit from the competent authority, rather than declining to conduct the examination.

The Court observed that no explanation whatsoever had been offered by the State for this serious lapse. It further held that the failure to properly seal the swab kit — resulting in the DNA analysis being impossible — could not be dismissed as a routine procedural deficiency. In the Court's words, such lapses “represent a serious failure in the handling and preservation of vital evidence in a case involving a minor child.”

The Court also placed the present case within a broader picture. It referred to a coordinate Bench's judgment in Manoj v. State of U.P., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315, where the lack of adequate FSL infrastructure across Uttar Pradesh had already been highlighted. The present case, the Court said, “must be seen as part of the larger systemic picture.”

The Bail Arguments

Counsel for Jitendra submitted that the doctor who medically examined the victim recorded no injuries and gave a normal opinion. Counsel also pointed to a delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 29 May 2025, with the chargesheet already filed. The defence urged that further custodial detention served no investigative purpose.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed bail, arguing that the allegations are serious in nature, that delay in lodging an FIR does not by itself demolish the prosecution case, and that the chargesheet having been filed on completion of investigation does not automatically entitle the accused to bail on the ground of incarceration alone.

Why the Court Granted Bail

Justice Bharti weighed the period of incarceration from 29 May 2025, the fact that investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been submitted, and the consequent absence of any further need for custodial detention for investigative purposes. Placed alongside these considerations was the central finding that no proper FSL report was available on record — the very evidence that the State had been required to produce but could not, owing to its own institutional failures.

The Court was careful to state that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the trial. The bail was granted strictly on the combination of incarceration period, completion of investigation, and absence of a proper FSL report, while keeping in view the nature of the allegations.

Outcome

The bail application was allowed. Jitendra is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or court concerned.

The bail is subject to conditions that Jitendra shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurise prosecution witnesses, and shall appear before the trial court on every date fixed, either personally or through counsel. The trial court may impose additional conditions as it deems fit.

The Court directed that the observations in the order are confined to the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the Director General of Police and the Director General of Prosecution.