Bail granted following examination of material witnesses and lack of DNA corroboration in sexual assault prosecution.

The appellant filed a second criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the Special Judge’s order dated February 24, 2026, which rejected his bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The appellant was arrested on October 15, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 204/2025 involving allegations of kidnapping, gang rape, and criminal intimidation under the BNS 2023 and the SC/ST Act.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and another accused forcefully took the complainant to an abandoned house and committed rape.

However, during the trial, material eye-witnesses Neetu Chouhat (PW-2) and Deepmala Chouhat (PW-3) exonerated the appellant, stating he merely accompanied them to the room where the complainant was found with another person.

Furthermore, the DNA report did not substantiate the sexual assault allegations against the appellant.

1. Whether the Special Judge erred in rejecting the appellant’s bail application despite the exoneration by material prosecution witnesses and the lack of forensic evidence.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the appellant was justified given the status of the trial and the absence of evidence regarding the likelihood of recidivism or tampering.

The court applied Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding appeals against bail orders, and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, concerning bail provisions.

Substantive charges were considered under Sections 140(3) (kidnapping/abduction), 70(1) (gang rape), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation) of the BNS 2023, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The court also noted the procedural requirement of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act regarding victim notification.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was weakened by several factors: the FIR was delayed, and the DNA examination report failed to support the accusation of sexual assault against the appellant.

Crucially, the Court highlighted that material prosecution witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) had already been examined and had exonerated the appellant, rendering the veracity of the original complaint doubtful.

The Court reasoned that since the primary witnesses had testified, there was no longer a risk of the appellant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

While the State opposed bail citing one criminal antecedent, the Court found that the appellant had no previous convictions for major offences and possessed a stable socio-economic status with family responsibilities.

The Court determined that the Special Judge’s refusal to grant bail was erroneous as there was no compelling reason for continued incarceration during the remainder of the trial.

The Court directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The release is subject to specific conditions, including regular attendance at trial hearings, a prohibition against committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial unless bail conditions are breached.