This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has granted bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), while recording serious concern over lapses in the medical examination and forensic evidence-handling of a minor victim. The Court observed that the child’s “golden hour” for collection and preservation of forensic evidence was lost because he was repeatedly shuttled between hospitals, and that an improperly sealed swab kit meant DNA analysis could not be carried out at all. The underlying criminal trial remains pending, and this article expresses no view on the truth or falsity of the allegations. Because a minor victim is involved, this summary omits any detail — beyond the case title — that could identify the child, consistent with Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 23 of the POCSO Act, which bar disclosure of a child victim’s identity.
- Case: Jitendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P., Lko. and 3 Others
- Citation: Neutral Citation 2026:AHC-LKO:58932 (also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617)
- Bench: Justice Rajeev Bharti
- Date: 18 August 2026
Facts
The applicant was named in an FIR registered at a police station in Lucknow district under Sections 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act — provisions that apply where the alleged penetrative sexual assault is on a child below twelve years. This was his first bail application, filed after the chargesheet had been submitted and after he had been in custody since late May 2025.
The State’s status report, filed after the Court had earlier directed production of the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, disclosed that the child victim was referred between a Community Health Centre and civil hospital facilities over several days without a medical examination being completed, on the stated ground that no injuries were found on preliminary assessment. When a swab sample was eventually collected, the swab kit sent to the forensic laboratory was not properly sealed, so the laboratory could not undertake DNA matching and no DNA report was ever generated. No explanation was offered by the State for these lapses.
What the Court Held
- Bail was held to be made out on ordinary bail parameters: the applicant had been in custody since 29 May 2025, the chargesheet had already been filed, his continued custody was not required for further investigation, and — notably — the FSL/DNA report the prosecution would have relied on was not even available on record. The Court granted bail “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.”
- The Court strongly criticised the forensic and medical lapses, calling the situation “deeply disheartening” and observing that “the victim is a minor child who, instead of being provided prompt, sensitive, and coordinated medical examination, was made to rush from one hospital to another.” It observed that if a Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit (SAECK) was not available, it was the duty of the Medical In-charge of the institution concerned to arrange one from the competent authority, and that “no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the State for this serious lapse.”
- The Court found that crucial forensic evidence had been lost, observing that “the precious ‘golden hour’ for the collection and preservation of crucial forensic evidence was lost when the victim was made to rush from one hospital to another for medical examination,” and that such lapses could not be dismissed as routine, because “they represent a serious failure in the handling and preservation of vital evidence in a case involving a minor child.”
- The Court situated the lapse within a systemic problem, referring to a coordinate Bench’s recent decision in Manoj v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315, which had highlighted inadequate FSL infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh, and remarked that the present case had to be viewed as part of that “larger systemic picture.”
- Bail was made subject to standard conditions — no tampering with evidence, no pressure on prosecution witnesses, and appearance on every date before the trial court — and the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police and the Director General of Prosecution. The order expressly clarified that its observations “are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.”
Precedents Relied On
The order does not build on a body of appellate case law; its only reference point is a coordinate Bench decision of the same High Court:
- Manoj v. State of U.P., 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 315 — cited for its finding on the lack of adequate FSL infrastructure in Uttar Pradesh, used here as background to characterise the present lapses as systemic rather than isolated, not as binding precedent on the bail parameters themselves.
Takeaway
This order is a reminder that in POCSO prosecutions, the integrity of the chain of forensic custody — timely medical examination, an available evidence-collection kit, and a properly sealed sample — can bear directly on a bail application. Where the State’s own status report shows that a DNA report was never generated because of administrative and medical lapses, a court weighing incarceration already undergone, a completed chargesheet, and the absence of further investigative need may find the case fit for bail, without that finding reflecting on how the trial will ultimately be decided. The order also illustrates courts flagging systemic FSL infrastructure gaps in Uttar Pradesh as a recurring concern beyond any single case.
Useful Resources
- Indian Kanoon — Jitendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. (18 August 2026)
- LiveLaw — ‘Golden Hour’ Lost In POCSO Case As Minor Shuttled Between Hospitals: Allahabad HC
- Indian Kanoon — Section 5 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
- Indian Kanoon — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (full Act text, including Section 72)
- Indian Kanoon — Section 23 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.