The Allahabad High Court expressed concern over bail being granted in rape and murder cases due to shortcomings in Uttar Pradesh’s forensic infrastructure, urging the State to modernize FSL facilities with advanced equipment and adequate staff. The Court directed that its order be placed before Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
The Allahabad High Court has raised serious concerns over the granting of bail to rape and murder accused in Uttar Pradesh, attributing the problem to shortcomings in the State’s forensic infrastructure. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that the court expects the government to rectify these deficiencies by upgrading Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs) with advanced equipment and adequate staffing. The court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath through the Chief Secretary for his review.
In the order dated May 21, the Bench noted:
“This Court has come across number of cases specially where the lady was murdered after committing the rape. In those cases, though vaginal swab and DNA sample of accused were also sent to FSL but in most of the cases, FSL report shows that because of incomplete generation of DNA profile, source of DNA found in the vaginal swab cannot be determined.”
The observation was made while the court granted bail to a man accused of rape and subsequent murder. The accused’s counsel pointed out that a forensic examination had reportedly supported his innocence. However, the court remarked that such outcomes may be linked to the poor condition of forensic facilities in Uttar Pradesh.
The court stated:
“Though, the present case is also related to heinous offence wherein rape was committed upon a lady and subsequently, she was murdered but for want of proper scientific evidence, this Court is constrained to release the applicant on bail, albeit with a heavy heart and great pain,”
The Bench further held that the failure lay with the State government. It said:
“In this case, outdated machine as well as incomplete infrastructure in FSL is the main reason for non-generation of DNA profile and no one can be blamed except the State Government who has many other issues to consider, apart from the issue of providing basic infrastructure to FSL,”
The court was dealing with a bail application filed by a man booked the previous year for the rape and murder of a woman. The victim reportedly went missing and was later found dead near a river. According to the prosecution, a witness allegedly saw the accused, identified as Manoj, heading toward the river shortly before the woman’s body was discovered.
Opposing the bail plea, the matter involved arguments based on the forensic findings. The accused’s counsel contended that the FSL report exonerated him because his DNA did not match the vaginal smear sample. The defense also argued that there was no incriminating evidence against him and that he had been falsely implicated. It was also submitted that the accused had been incarcerated since November 21, 2025.
After considering these submissions, the High Court granted bail but clarified that the decision was driven by the lack of proper scientific evidence. The court noted: “In the present case also, this Court has to release the applicant on bail for the reason that FSL report does not show that the DNA found in the vaginal smear of the deceased belongs to the applicant because of insufficient generation of DNA profile. This is biggest anomaly in investigation as well as incomplete facility in the FSL.”
The Bench added that it had recently been informed by the Director of the UP FSL that most forensic laboratories in the State were facing acute shortages of staff and other infrastructure gaps. Despite the alleged offence being extremely serious, the court said it was compelled to grant bail due to the absence of adequate medical/scientific evidence linking the accused to the crime.
It concluded by observing:
“This Court is constrained to release the applicant on bail, albeit with a heavy heart and great pain.”
Advocate Naryan Singh (Kushwaha) appeared for the accused/petitioner. Advocate Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the complainant, and Advocate Rakesh Kumar Mishra represented the State.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE