Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Bobi Pal vs State Of U.P on 11 March, 2026
1
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).19614/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-11-2025
in CRA No. 3775/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench]
BOBI PAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 313398/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 11-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Yogender Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Devans, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv.
Ms. Sharvi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv.
Ms. Hemlata Rawat , AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
1. Our last order dated 28.01.2026 reads thus:-
Digitally signed by
MOHD IBRAHIM
Date: 2026.03.14
“1. Our order dated 9-1-2026 reads thus:-
13:42:32 IST
Reason:
“1. Heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
2. Our last order dated 8.12.2025 reads
2
thus:-
“1. Issue notice.
2. List the matter on 09.01.2026.
3. In the meantime, in the event of
arrest of the petitioner in
connection with FIR No. 599 of 2025
dated 03.10.2025 registered with
Police Station Thakurganj,
District-Lucknow (Old FIR No. 0387
of 2025 dated 14.09.2025 registered
with Police Station Dubagga) for
the offences punishable under
Sections 64(1), 89, 123, 316(2),
351(2) and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita Act, 2023, and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, he shall be enlarged on
bail by the Investigating Officer.
This is, however, subject to the
petitioner cooperating with the
Investigating Officer during the
investigation.”
3. Today when the matter was taken up for
further hearing, we inquired with the
learned counsel appearing for the
petitioneraccused whether he appeared before
the Investigating Officer or not. According
to the learned counsel, the petitioner
appeared before the Investigating Officer on
10.12.2025, and his statement was also
recorded.
4. According to the learned counsel,
pursuant to the order passed by this Court
dated 08.12.2025, referred to above, the
petitioner also came to be released on bail
on furnishing a personal bond before the
Investigating Officer.
5. It was also brought to our notice that
the investigation has been completed and
chargesheet has been filed. However, the
case is yet to be committed to the Court of
Sessions.
6. On merits, the learned counsel submitted
that there is a gross delay of more than two
years in lodging the FIR. The allegations
are palpably false. The FIR came to be
lodged by the victim on account of a civil
dispute.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the victim (complainant)
submitted that material facts have been
3
suppressed by the petitioner.
8. The victim is a 40% disabled lady.
9. She further brought to our notice that
there is a video clipping on the basis of
which the petitioner kept on blackmailing
the victim, and for a period of more than 2
years the petitioner kept on abusing her
sexually.
10. She further submitted that many
provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”)
including Section 308 of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short “the BNS, 2023”)
have not been taken into consideration by
the Police.
11. We also heard Mr.Shaurya Sahay, the
learned counsel appearing for the State of
Uttar Pradesh.
12. Prima facie, it appears that the learned
counsel appearing for the State has not been
instructed properly. 13. He has no idea
whether the petitioner appeared before the
Investigating Officer or not.
14. In such circumstances, referred to
above, we direct the Investigating Officer
to personally remain present before this
Court with all the papers of investigation
on 28.01.2026.
2. In pursuance of our Order, referred to above, Mr.
Raj Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer
personally present before us with the papers of
investigation. He pointed out that the mobile of the
accused has been seized and forwarded to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow. The Report of
the F.S.L. has not yet been received.
3. Having regard to the nature of the allegations
levelled by the victim in the First Information
Report, we are of the view that the Report of F.S.L.
will assume significance.
4. Before we take the final call, we must have the
F.S.L. Report before us.
5. The Investigating Officer informs that ordinarily
it takes about 3-4 months before the F.S.L. prepares
the Report and forwards the same.
6. Since we are in-seisin of this matter, we request
the F.S.L., Lucknow to expedite the preparation of
the Report.
7. The F.S.L., Lucknow shall see to it that the
Report is forwarded to the Investigating Officer
within a period of four weeks from today.
8. Once the Report is received, the Investigating
4
Officer through the learned counsel appearing for
the State shall place it before us for our perusal.
We shall hear the matter further on all other
aspects once we have the F.S.L. Report before us.
9. One copy of this Order shall be provided to the
learned counsel appearing for the State to be handed
over to the IO so that the IO can pursue the matter
further with the FSL, Lucknow.
10. Post it after five weeks.”
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for further hearing,
the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the
Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) has not been able to
retrieve any videographs or photos from the mobile handset of
the petitioner seized during the course of the investigation.
3. Of course, it is the case of the learned counsel
appearing for the State that the F.S.L. was unable to retrieve
because the mobile handset was formatted. However, besides
this, something very shocking has been brought to our notice.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that there has been a settlement between the
petitioner and the first informant (victim).
5. The learned counsel appearing for the victim would submit
that she may be permitted to withdraw her vakalatnama as the
victim has stopped responding to her phone calls.
6. Be that as it may, having regard to nature of the
allegations levelled in the FIR, the delay in the registration
of the FIR and other circumstances on record, we make our
order of interim bail dated 08.12.2025 absolute.
7. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
5
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(HARPREET KAUR) (POOJA SHARMA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
