# Vijay Kumar @ Krishna v. State of U.P & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1394
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 750 of 2025
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-krishna-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53472
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 376 & 323 - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 -
Section 3/4 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161 & 182 - FIR was
instituted by informant/victim that she
was 15 years old, gone to ease herself out
, whereby she was caught hold off by
applicant
along
with
one
another
unknown person, beaten up and raped by
him,
they
ran
away
from
place
of
occurrence - Considering overall facts and
circumstances, including delay in lodging
FIR,
presence
of
two
contradictory
forensic reports, unexplained delay in
sending DNA sample for analysis despite
recovery of clothes over two years ago,
and lack of medical evidence supporting
prosecution's version, along with fact that
closure report was earlier submitted by
Investigating Officer, without expressing
any opinion on merits, applicant made out
case for bail - Accordingly, bail application
allowed. (Para 5, 39)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government employees; that the State
Government has taken such a policy decision in
the year 2005 not to extend the pensionary
benefits to the employees of the aided institutes,
boards, corporations, etc.; and the proposal of the
then Director of Walmi to extend the pensionary
benefits to the employees of Walmi has been
specifically
turned
down
by
the
State
Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the High Court is not justified in
directing the State to extend the pensionary
benefits to the employees of Walmi, which is an
independent autonomous entity.

30. The observations made by the
High Court that as the salary and allowances
payable to the employees of Walmi are being
paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the State
and/or that the Walmi is getting grant from the
Government are all irrelevant considerations, so
far as extending the pensionary benefits to its
employees is concerned. Walmi has to run its
administration from its own financial resources.
Walmi has no financial powers of imposing any
tax like a State and/or the Central Government
and Walmi has to depend upon the grants to be
made by the State Government.

31. Now, so far as the observations
made by the High Court that the amount
available with Walmi and deposited with EPF
towards the employee's contribution itself is
sufficient to meet the financial liability of the
pensionary benefits to the employees and,
therefore, there is no justification and/or
reasonable basis for the State Government to
refuse to extend the benefit of pension to the
retired employees of Walmi is concerned, it is to
be noted that merely because Walmi has a fund
with itself, it cannot be a ground to extend the
pensionary benefits. Grant of pensionary benefits
is not a one-time payment. Grant of pensionary
benefits is a recurring monthly expenditure and
there is a continuous liability in future towards
the pensionary benefits. Therefore, merely
because at one point of time, Walmi might have
certain funds does not mean that for all times to
come, it can bear such burden of paying pension
to all its employees. In any case, it is ultimately
for the State Government and the Society
(Walmi) to take their own policy decision
whether to extend the pensionary benefits to its
employees or not. The interference by the
judiciary in such a policy decision having
financial implications and/or having a cascading
effect is not at all warranted and justified."

57. In the background of what we have
said above, we are of opinion that the petitioners
are not entitled to a mandamus, ordering the
State Government to revise and enhance their
honourarium or pay, by whatever name
called, to bring it at par with the minimum
pay scale earned by a Policeman, who is an
enrolled member of the State Police. At the
same, we are also of opinion that there being
a recommendation by the Law Commission,
headed by Mr. Justice A.N. Mittal, for the
enactment of a statute to regulate, inter
alia, the service conditions of Gram
Prahari
or
Village
Policemen,
the
Government may consider enacting a
suitable legislation to make and render
the office of the Village Policemen or
Gram Prahari, effective and vibrant in
contemporary times.

58. Both the writ petitions are
disposed of accordingly.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1394
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 750 of 2025

Vijay Kumar @ Krishna ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P & Ors. ....Opposite Parties
5 All. Vijay Kumar @ Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1395
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Akhilesh Singh, Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri
Pankaj Singh, Sri Shivam Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Sanjay Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 376 & 323 - Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 -
Section 3/4 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161 & 182 - FIR was
instituted by informant/victim that she
was 15 years old, gone to ease herself out
, whereby she was caught hold off by
applicant
along
with
one
another
unknown person, beaten up and raped by
him,
they
ran
away
from
place
of
occurrence - Considering overall facts and
circumstances, including delay in lodging
FIR,
presence
of
two
contradictory
forensic reports, unexplained delay in
sending DNA sample for analysis despite
recovery of clothes over two years ago,
and lack of medical evidence supporting
prosecution's version, along with fact that
closure report was earlier submitted by
Investigating Officer, without expressing
any opinion on merits, applicant made out
case for bail - Accordingly, bail application
allowed. (Para 5, 39)

Application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad Vs St.
of Mah., AIR 2023 SC 2938

2. Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati & anr.Vs St. of M.P.,
2025 INSC 150

3. Anokhilal Vs St. of M.P., (2019) 20 SCC 196

4. Rahul Vs St. of Delhi, Ministry of Home
Affairs, (2023) 1 SCC 83

5. Krishan Kumar Malik Vs St. of Har., (2011) 7
SCC 130

6. Pattu Rajan Vs St. of T.N., (2019) 4 SCC 771
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Counter affidavits filed by learned
A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant respectively are taken on record.

3. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Shahi,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the
informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

4. Applicant seeks bail in Case
Crime No.69 of 2021, under Sections 376,
323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act,
Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri,
during the pendency of trial.

 PROSECUTION STORY:

5. The FIR was instituted by the
informant/victim that she was 15 years old
and had gone to ease herself out at about
7:30 p.m. on 24.03.2021, whereby she was
caught hold off by the applicant alongwith
one another unknown person and was
beaten up and raped by him and thereupon
ran away from the place of occurrence.

 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF
OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case.
7. The FIR is delayed by about
eighteen hours and there is no explanation
of the said delay caused.

8.
There
is
no
medical
corroboration of the incident as no injuries
were found on the body of the victim.
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. The medical examination of the
victim was conducted on 25.03.2021 at
about 4:00 p.m. The vaginal swab and
slides of the victim were prepared and were
sent for forensic analysis.

10. The victim has reiterated the
allegations made in the FIR, but has
changed the time of offence to 8:00 p.m.
She has also stated the time to be 8:00 p.m.
in her statement recorded by the doctor
conducting her medical examination.

11. The statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 is filled up with
embellishments as she has introduced
another name and developed story stating
that she was threatened by the applicant
and co-accused person.

12. At this stage, she has reverted
back to the time of offence mentioned in
FIR i.e. 7:30 p.m.

13. The victim has introduced two
witnesses to the incident and has also stated
that her medical examination was conducted
after she had changed her clothes.

14. The supplementary report was
prepared by the doctor conducting medical
examination of the victim and according to
it, no spermatozoa was detected in the
smear, as such, no sexual violence was
subjected to her.

15. The clothes of the victim were
recovered by the Investigating Officer on
25.03.2021 itself and he did not observe
any stains on the underwear and lower of
the victim at the time they were sealed.

16. In the pathology report, no
spermatozoa was detected in the vaginal
smear of the victim.
17. The said forensic science
laboratory
report
dated
27.04.2024
indicated as follows:-

 (i) On underwear of the victim,
human
blood
was
found,
but
no
spermatozoa was found.

 (ii) On the lower of the victim,
spermatozoa was found, but an anomalous
and vague inference has been mentioned in
it stating that either blood or spermatozoa
was of human origin.

18. The said report is tainted one as
it does not indicate the details of the
procedure undertaken in testing the same.

19. The victim and her father had
submitted an affidavit before the S.S.P.,
Mainpuri that the applicant had not
committed any offence with her and she
was major and her age was deliberately
suppressed. She has further stated in the
said application that the FIR was instituted
at the directions of the villagers. The said
affidavit has been filed as Annexure No.7
to the affidavit filed with the bail
application.

20. The police after thorough
investigation was pleased to file a closure
report in the said case on 23.04.2021 and
even a report was sent for proceeding under
Section
182
Cr.P.C.
against
the
victim/informant.

21. Subsequent to it, the victim and
her father moved an application on C.M.
Portal and filed a protest petition, as such,
further investigation was taken up.

22. On 31.10.2023, blood sample
of the applicant and co-accused person
were collected. On 25.11.2023, the sample
5 All. Vijay Kumar @ Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1397
was sent for DNA test and on 04.03.2024,
the DNA report was submitted in court.

23.
The
said
DNA
report
categorically indicated that semen was
found on the lower and underwear of the
victim, which matched with that of the
applicant, as such, the second statement of
the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was
recorded and the applicant was arrested.

24. The said DNA sample was
collected after 2.5 years of the incident i.e.
on 25.11.2023. No proper procedure has
been followed in the DNA profiling of the
applicant and the clothes of the victim,
which were lying idle for more than two
years.

25. The two forensic laboratory
reports are self contradictory. There is
every
possibility
of
tampering
with
evidence as even the sample for testing at
the lab was sent after a delay of about 25
days.

26.
The
instant
FIR
is
a
counterblast to an incident that occurred on
24.03.2021 at about 7:45 p.m., whereby the
applicant sustained two lacerated wounds
and fracture on his right elbow and his
medical examination was conducted the
same day at 9:15 p.m. In the said case also,
the
final
report
(charge-sheet)
was
submitted against the family members of
the victim, including her father, on
02.07.2021. As such, it is a clear-cut case
of malicious prosecution.

27. There is no criminal history of
the applicant. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 16.11.2024 and 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:

28. The FIR is prompt and as per
high-school mark-sheet, the date of birth of
the victim was 03.04.2005, as such, at the
time of incident, she was 15 years, 11
months and 21 days old and was minor.

29. The police had collected
undergarments of the victim on 20.03.2021
itself.

30. The closure report of the case
was submitted by the Investigating Officer
in a hurry i.e. within 25 days of the
incident.

31. The father of the victim had
filed a Writ Petition No.4858 of 2021
before this Court for fair investigation and
the Court passed the order as follows on
03.08.2021:-

 "Sri Sanjay Mishra, counsel for
the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondents.

 This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner seeking direction to the
police authorities to conduct fair and
impartial investigation in respect of Case
Crime No. 69 of 2021, under Sections 376
DA, 323 IPC & 3/4 The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(POCSO), Police Station Kurra, District
Mainpuri.

 According to the petitioner, on
25.03.2021, daughter of the petitioner has
lodged a report against private respondent
but till date nothing has been done by the
police authorities. An apprehension has
been shown by the petitioner that either the
police is protecting the accused or is not
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interested to take any action against the
private respondent.

 In the writ petition, the petitioner
has
also
prayed
for
transfer
of
investigation, however, during argument,
he submits that purpose of filing this writ
petition would be served, if direction be
issued to the police authorities for fair and
impartial investigation.

 State counsel submits that the
police authorities are under the obligation
to do the investigation fairly, impartially
and expeditiously and the same would be
done in accordance with law.

 The present petition is disposed
of directing the police authorities to
conclude the investigation of the said case
fairly,
impartially
and
expeditiously,
preferably within 45 days from the date of
production of a copy of this order before
them.

 It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case and the competent authority to
act in accordance with law.

 ............"

32. In compliance of the said order
of this Court, an application was moved by
the police before the C.J.M., Mainpuri for
DNA test of the applicant.

33.
The
Chief
Medical
Superintendent, Mainpuri constituted a
panel for DNA profiling of the applicant.

34. The affidavit filed before the
S.S.P., Mainpuri is fake. It was not filed by
the victim. After getting knowledge of the
fake affidavit given to the S.S.P., Mainpuri,
the victim moved an application before the
S.S.P., Mainpuri and denied the said
compromise between the parties.

35. The father of the informant also
filed
Criminal
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.14064 of 2023 before this Court, which
was dismissed.

36. The victim again filed Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No.19095 of 2024,
whereby
this
Court
directed
the
Investigating Officer to undertake fair
investigation expeditiously in the case vide
its' order dated 19.11.2024.

37. The most pertinent point is that
the co-accused person Chandra Shekhar
was granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 07.05.2025 on the basis of a DNA
report dated 20.02.2024 on the ground that
the said DNA report was found positive
with respect to the applicant, as such, the
applicant is not entitled for bail.

 CONCLUSION:

38. Evidentiary Value of the DNA
Report:

 (I) A serious anomaly exists
between the two forensic reports on record.
The DNA report, which appears to support
the prosecution's version of events, is
rendered unreliable due to an undue and
unexplained delay in forwarding the
samples for forensic examination i.e. 25
days.

 (ii) This delay raises significant
concerns regarding the integrity and
sanctity of the forensic material. In criminal
jurisprudence, the chain of custody is a
fundamental requirement to ensure that
5 All. Vijay Kumar @ Krishna Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1399
evidence
remains
untampered,
uncontaminated, and authentic from the
time of collection until its presentation in
court.
Any
interruption,
delay,
or
unexplained gap in this chain-particularly
when not adequately accounted for-casts
a serious shadow of doubt on the reliability
of the evidence.

 (iii) Given the lapse in timely
dispatch and the possibility of tampering or
contamination
during
the
intervening
period, the potential for manipulation
cannot be ruled out. This undermines the
probative value of the DNA report.

 (iv) The Supreme Court in recent
judgment passed in Prakash Nishad @
Kewat
Zinak
Nishad
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra1 has stated that the samples
when collected should be sent to the
laboratory without any delay, so that the
possibility
of
contamination
and
the
concomitant prospect of diminishment in
value can be ruled out. It further noted:

 "In the present case, the delay in
sending the samples is unexplained and
therefore, the possibility of contamination
and
the
concomitant
prospect
of
diminishment in value cannot be reasonably
ruled out. On the need for expedition in
ensuring that samples when collected are
sent to the concerned laboratory as soon as
possible, we may refer to "Guidelines for
collection, storage and transportation of
Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating
Officers-
Central
Forensic
Science
Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences
Services Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. of
India" which in particular reference to blood
and semen, irrespective of its form, i.e. liquid
or dry (crust/stain or spatter) records the
sample so taken "Must be submitted in the
laboratory without any delay."
 (v) The aforesaid view has been
expressed by the Supreme Court in its'
latest judgement passed on 16.01.2025 in
Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati & Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh2.

 (vi) The same view has been vent
by the Supreme Court in Anokhilal v. State
of Madhya Pradesh3, Rahul v. State of
Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs4, Krishan
Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana5 and
Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu6.

 (vii) Thus the DNA report has to
be treated with extreme caution, at the time
of adjudication of bail, in the interest of
justice and to uphold the principles of a
fairness.

39. 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 institution of FIR and there being
two contradictory forensic reports on record,
there being delay in sending the DNA report
for forensic analysis for matching it with
clothes taken in possession more than two
years ago, and also the fact that the medical
examination report does not corroborate the
prosecution story coupled with the fact that
earlier on, in the instant case, closure report
was filed by the Investigating Officer, 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.

40.
Let
the
applicant-
Vijay
Kumar
@
Krishna
involved
in
aforementioned case crime number be
released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions.
1400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (i) The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence during trial.

 (ii)
The
applicant
shall
not
pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

 (iii) The applicant shall appear
before the trial court on the date fixed.

41. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and
residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned
before the bonds are accepted.

42.
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.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1400
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2025

Brahma Prakash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Sri Sanjay Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Rohit
Tripathi

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article - 226, - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 311, 313 & 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -Sections
120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 -
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
- Section 448 - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Sections 3,
4 & 59(2)(c) - India Evidence Act, 1872-
Sections 16, 145 & 161 - Writ Petition -
challenging the impugned rejection order of
transfer application moved under Section 448 of
BNSS - Petitioner, formerly serving as Managing
Director of LACFEDD, convicted and sentenced
in corruption case - Appeal preferred - Bail
granted - Enforcement Directorate initiated
complaint proceedings under the PMLA -
Petitioner filed transfer application u/s 448
BNSS, alleging bias and misconduct by the
presiding officer of the trial court - Application
rejected - Multiple applications filed u/s 311
Cr.P.C. for summoning of witnesses - dismissed
as improper and dilatory - Applications under
Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Sections 16 & 145
of Evidence Act - rejected on merits, judicial
orders found valid and free from legal infirmity -
No prejudice shown - Alternative remedies
available and availed - Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. filed before High Court - pending
adjudication - Contempt proceedings initiated
by
petitioner
for
willful
disobedience
of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court -
pending - Present writ petition, filed challenging
rejection of transfer application u/s 448 BNSS -
Petitioner alleged demand of Rs. 1 crore bribe by
trial court's presiding officer - Court below noted -
(i)
complaint
lacked
substance,
no
action
warranted, (ii) repeated applications, aimed at
stalling proceedings, (iii) conduct of petitioner and
counsel found intended to mount pressure on the
court so that they can prolong the trial for they
used loud noises in the court room - Court upheld,
the integrity of trial process, affirmed validity of
impugned orders with a finding that learned
session court has not committed any illegality in
passing impugned order - Transfer application
held to be filed on false and imaginary allegations
- accordingly. (Para - 10, 11, 20, 21, 22)

Writ petition is dismissed. (E-11)

Writ Petition - Dismissed.

List of Cases cited: