Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Rape-Murder Case, Flags Systemic FSL Failures Across Uttar Pradesh
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal granted bail to an accused in a rape-murder case after the FSL report showed his DNA did not match the vaginal smear of the deceased, citing inadequate infrastructure at U.P. forensic labs.
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, on 21 May 2026, granted bail to Manoj, an accused charged with rape and murder under Sections 66(1), 103(1), and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in Case Crime No. 199 of 2025 registered at Police Station Sakeet, District Etah. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly in Court No. 67, released the applicant after the FSL report produced by the State showed that the DNA found in the vaginal smear of the deceased did not match the applicant's DNA. The court expressed that it acted “with a heavy heart and great pain,” and directed the Registrar (Compliance) to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, U.P., for the perusal of the Chief Minister, drawing attention to the state of forensic infrastructure across the State.
The Prosecution Case and the Applicant's Arrest
According to the prosecution story, the deceased left her home on 18 November 2025 at 4:00 pm to go to agricultural land to dispose of cow dung. When she did not return, her family began searching for her and found her body near a river. An inquest was conducted on 18 November 2025 itself, and the alleged eyewitness Satendra was present as a witness at that inquest.
The FIR was lodged on 19 November 2025 against unknown persons. The following day, the first informant's statement was recorded, in which he alleged, on the basis of information received from Satendra, that Satendra had seen the applicant going towards the river and returning in wet clothing. Satendra's own statement was recorded on 20 November 2025, corroborating this account. Statements of other eyewitnesses were recorded on 21 November 2025, and on the applicant's pointing out, a watch alleged to belong to the deceased was recovered from an open field. The applicant was taken into custody on 21 November 2025 and had remained in jail since that date.
Challenges to the Prosecution Story
Counsel for the applicant, Sri Narayan Singh (Kushwaha), raised several challenges to the prosecution's case. The central argument was that if Satendra had genuinely seen the applicant on 18 November 2025, he would have disclosed this to the first informant on that very day. Yet the FIR lodged on 19 November 2025 named no accused. The subsequent statements of Satendra and other eyewitnesses, recorded only on 20 and 21 November 2025, were said to cast doubt over the prosecution story.
On the recovery of the watch, counsel submitted that a single watch alleged to belong to the deceased could not constitute evidence of the applicant's involvement in rape and murder. The applicant was said to have no criminal history.
The most significant submission concerned the FSL report. In pursuance of an order dated 14 May 2026, the learned Additional Government Advocate produced the FSL report in court. That report showed that the DNA of the applicant did not match the DNA found in the vaginal smear of the deceased. Counsel argued that in the absence of any incriminating material, the applicant had been falsely implicated on the basis of apprehension and doubt.
Counsel for the first informant, Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, and the learned AGA, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, opposed the bail prayer. The court recorded, however, that they could not dispute the facts placed before it.
The Court's Reasoning on Bail
Justice Deshwal considered the nature of the offence, the evidence on record, the complicity of the accused, the overcrowding of jails, and the heavy pendency of criminal cases before trial courts. The court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, and the guidelines of the Allahabad High Court in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765, on the grant of bail.
The court was clear that the DNA mismatch was the decisive factor. The FSL report did not establish that the DNA found in the vaginal smear of the deceased belonged to the applicant. The reason for this, as the court explained, was not a clean negative result but an incomplete generation of the DNA profile — a recurring problem across U.P. forensic science laboratories.
Justice Deshwal referred to the earlier decision of this court in Mevalal Prajapati v. State of U.P., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine All 4981, in which the Director of U.P. FSL had informed the court that most FSL units in the State face problems of vacancies and the absence of high-end machines capable of generating DNA profiles properly. The court found that the same deficiency had recurred in the present case: outdated machines and incomplete infrastructure at the FSL were the main reason for the failure to generate a DNA profile.
The court stated that no individual could be blamed for this failure except the State Government, which, it observed, has many other issues to consider apart from providing basic infrastructure to the FSL. Despite the gravity of the offence — rape followed by murder — the court said it was “constrained to release the applicant on bail” for want of proper scientific evidence.
Directions to the State Government
Beyond the bail order itself, Justice Deshwal made a series of institutional observations and directions. The court expressed that it still expects the State Government to provide high-end machines to FSL units as well as sufficient staff.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, U.P., for the perusal of the Chief Minister. The court described the absence of a reliable DNA profiling facility as “the biggest anomaly in investigation.”
The court also directed that the trial court send the release order to the concerned jail through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure the applicant's early release. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the applicant through the Etah Jail Superintendent via e-mail or the e-prison portal within 24 hours, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, decided on 31 January 2023, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
Bail Conditions
The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The following conditions were imposed:
- The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade that person from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer, or tamper with the evidence.
- The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
- The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
- The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.
Breach of any of these conditions was stated to be a ground for cancellation of bail. The court directed that the identity, status, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted, and that the mobile number and Aadhaar card of both the applicant and sureties be verified. The court clarified that no observations made in the order shall affect the trial.
Order
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13242 of 2026 was allowed. Manoj, the applicant in Case Crime No. 199 of 2025 under Sections 66(1), 103(1), and 238 BNS, Police Station Sakeet, District Etah, was directed to be released on bail subject to the conditions set out above. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, U.P., for the perusal of the Chief Minister. The order was passed on 21 May 2026 by Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal.