Bail Granted in POCSO Case as Material Evidence and DNA Report Exonerates the Accused

The applicant, an 18-year-old laborer, was accused of kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault of a 16-year-old victim.

He was arrested on January 6, 2026, for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3, 4, 5(1), and 6 of the POCSO Act.

A previous bail application was withdrawn on April 10, 2026, with liberty to renew after three months.

The applicant moved this second application before the expiry of that period, citing a material change in circumstances: the victim (PW-1) and her parents (PW-2 and PW-3) were examined by the trial court and did not support the prosecution's allegations.

1. Whether the examination of key prosecution witnesses and the findings of the DNA report constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to grant bail before the expiry of the previously stipulated three-month waiting period.

2. Whether the applicant, a young adult with no criminal antecedents, is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It adhered to the principle that bail may be reconsidered upon a "material change in circumstances" despite the dismissal of a prior application.

It further considered Section 309 of the CrPC (now Section 346 of BNSS) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

The decision rested on the established legal doctrine that judicial custody should not be punitive where the veracity of the prosecution is prima facie weakened by hostile evidence or negative scientific (DNA) reports.

The Court observed that although three months had not passed since the first bail dismissal, the examination of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 provided a material change as they "exonerated the applicant".

Furthermore, the DNA examination report failed to find Y-STR DNA in the victim’s source material, contradicting the allegation of penetrative assault.

The Court reasoned that since the applicant is 18 years old, has no criminal record (clean past), and belongs to a low socio-economic background (occasional laborer), there was no evidence of recidivism or risk of fleeing from justice.

The Court concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary as the "fate of the prosecution is apparent" and trial conclusion would take time.

The Court allowed the application and directed the release of Gutaru @ Khilan Singh Yadav on bail. The applicant was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the same amount subject to conditions including regular appearance in court, non-involvement in similar offences, and non-interference with remaining evidence or witnesses.