The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Umesh Mali, a 20-year-old accused facing charges under the POCSO Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the SC/ST Act. While hearing the matter, the Court also addressed an important procedural question regarding whether a bail application can proceed if the informant does not appear despite being informed about the hearing.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on June 16, 2026, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3976 of 2026.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR lodged on February 11, 2026, by a 14-year-old girl in Raebareli district. The complainant alleged that when she had gone to a field on the evening of February 10, 2026, two persons allegedly took her away and one of them committed sexual assault.
During the investigation, the victim repeated the allegations in her statements recorded before the authorities. A charge sheet was later filed by the police.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea and argued that the allegations had been substantiated during the investigation.
Court Examines Objection on Bail Hearing
At the outset, the State raised a preliminary objection, contending that the bail application could not be heard because the complainant was not present in court.
The Court noted that the complainant had already been informed about the bail proceedings by the police. Referring to the POCSO Rules and an earlier decision of the High Court, Justice Vidyarthi observed that the law requires that the victim or informant be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
“The statutory mandate is to provide an opportunity of hearing to the complainant,” the bench observed.
The Court further clarified that once such an opportunity is provided, it is for the informant to decide whether to appear. The absence of the informant, despite due notice, cannot prevent the Court from hearing a bail application.
Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised by the State was rejected.
Court’s Observations on Merits
While considering the merits of the case, the Court noted certain aspects emerging from the material placed before it.
The order records that the victim initially alleged that a named co-accused had assisted in the incident. However, in a later statement before the Magistrate, she stated that she did not know who the second person involved was.
The Court also took note of the medico-legal examination report. According to the order, no external injuries were found on the victim's body, the hymen was reported intact, and the clothes collected during examination were neither torn nor stained.
Another factor considered by the Court was that pathological examination reports relating to samples collected during the medical examination were not available in the case diary.
Decision
Taking into account the material available at this stage, along with the applicant’s age, absence of any criminal history, completion of the investigation, and his custody since February 12, 2026, the Court found that a case for bail had been made out.
Allowing the application, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi directed that Umesh Mali be released on bail upon furnishing the required bond and sureties. The Court imposed standard conditions requiring him not to tamper with evidence, not to influence witnesses, and to appear before the trial court on every date fixed for hearing.
Case Details
Case Title: Umesh Mali v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow & Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3976 of 2026
Judge: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Decision Date: June 16, 2026
