Search cases

In re: Compensation under UP Mahila Samman Kosh for POCSO survivors

The Allahabad High Court ruled on 24 October 2026 that provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmibai Mahila Samman Kosh requiring injury reports or medical examinations as mandatory conditions for compensation are unconstitutional. The Court held that sexual assault survivors cannot be denied financial assistance due to an absence of physical injuries or a refusal to undergo medical exams, directing the payment of three lakh rupees to a minor POCSO survivor.

State vs Three Accused — 1983 Fatehpur Gangrape case

The Allahabad High Court acquitted three individuals in a 1983 gangrape case, setting aside their previous conviction. The court cited significant contradictions in witness testimony, unexplained inconsistencies in evidence, and a six-day delay in the filing of the FIR as grounds for the acquittal, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

State vs Surajpur Man — POCSO and Rape Case

A POCSO court in Noida denied a bail plea to a Surajpur resident accused of raping and impregnating a 14-year-old girl, citing the addition of serious charges as reported on 13 May 2026. During a hearing on 12 October 2026, the Allahabad High Court raised concerns regarding the state education system after the victim, who had completed Class V, was unable to read a Hindi newspaper.

Allahabad High Court — CBI probe into police encounter in Uttar Pradesh

The Allahabad High Court ordered a CBI investigation into a May 2025 police encounter in Shravasti on 28 August 2026 after ruling the police FIR account appeared prima facie false. Previously, on 21 August 2026, the court directed the trial court to provide the rape accused applicant with legal aid before passing a fresh order on his discharge application. The court also criticized the Uttar Pradesh Police for recurring patterns of alleged staged encounters and procedural guideline violations.

State vs. Accused (unnamed) — Sexual assault and rape case, Ghaziabad

Following an initial complaint on 7 July 2026, an FIR was registered in Ghaziabad on 28 July 2026 regarding allegations of rape and sexual assault against an employer. The Allahabad High Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh DGP on 19 August 2026 to conduct a supervisory inquiry into local police officials for their initial refusal to register the case. The court subsequently ruled on 26 August 2026 that police cannot refuse to register FIRs in sexual assault cases based solely on a lack of digital evidence.

State vs. Avimukteshwaranand

Swami Avimukteshwaranand is facing allegations in a child sexual abuse case, for which he was granted bail by the Allahabad High Court on 25 March 2026. The court order also restrained him from making public statements. As reported on 13 July 2026, the Allahabad High Court is currently considering a petition from a man claiming he was offered money to falsely implicate the Swami.

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Accused in Attempt to Rape Case

The Supreme Court stayed an order by the Allahabad High Court which had observed that touching a woman's breast does not constitute rape. The Supreme Court termed the High Court's remarks as insensitive and inhuman.

State vs Law Student — Shahjahanpur extortion case

A law student who accused politician Chinmayanand of sexual assault was arrested in September 2019 for allegedly attempting to extort money from him. She was released from jail on 11 December 2019, and the Allahabad High Court dismissed her plea alleging bias by the investigating team on 30 April 2020.