Chhattisgarh High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Absence of a DNA match does not justify bail when other evidence prima facie links the accused to murder.

VAIBHAV SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Absence of a DNA match does not justify bail when other evidence prima facie links the accused to murder.. VAIBHAV SONI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a case registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Source reference: para. 1

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused Dhalendra took the deceased, Praveen, to Kharga Talab, where the deceased was assaulted and drowned; the body was later recovered from the pond following Dhalendra’s disclosure

Source reference: para. 2

The applicant argued that his implication rested on the co-accused’s statement, that no incriminating article was recovered at his instance, and that the forensic evidence did not establish a DNA match

Source reference: para. 3

The State relied, among other things, on seizure of the motorcycle allegedly used to transport the deceased and CCTV footage collected during investigation

Source reference: para. 4
02

Issues

Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in light of the allegations and material collected during investigation

Source reference: paras. 1, 5–8

Whether the absence of a DNA match and the applicant’s objections to the evidence justified bail at this stage

Source reference: paras. 3, 7–8
03

Law Applied

Section 483 of the BNSS provides the basis for the application for regular bail

Source reference: para. 1

The Court stated that, at the bail stage, its role is confined to verifying whether a prima facie case exists

Source reference: para. 6

The alleged offences were under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 238 of the BNS

Source reference: para. 1
04

Reasoning

The Court found specific allegations of the applicant’s participation in the murder and considered the seized motorcycle, CCTV footage and recovery of the deceased’s body following the co-accused’s disclosure as material relevant to the prima facie assessment

Source reference: paras. 6–8

It held that the FSL report’s failure to establish a DNA match could not be considered in isolation and that the evidentiary value of the report was for the trial court to assess

Source reference: para. 7

On the material before it, the Court was not inclined to grant bail

Source reference: para. 8
05

Holding

The Court rejected the applicant’s first application for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS

The absence of a DNA match did not, at this stage, outweigh the other material relied upon in support of the prosecution case

Source reference: paras. 7–9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

4 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20233

Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

VAIBHAV SONIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment