BAIL GRANTED: Victim's contradictory testimony and DNA report exonerating applicant warrant bail.

The applicant, Suraj Meena @ Bareek, sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 32 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Mahila Thana, Ujjain, for offences under various sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

He has been in judicial custody since May 28, 2025.

His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on November 6, 2025, with liberty to renew the prayer after the examination of the victim and her parental aunt before the trial court.

The victim, a 17-year-old, initially filed a complaint on May 25, 2024, alleging instances of forced prostitution and rape by others.

Later, in a supplementary statement recorded on June 6, 2025, she accused Suraj of rape.

Subsequently, Suraj was arrested.

The final report has been filed, and the trial is ongoing.

The victim (PW-2) and her parental aunt (PW-1) have been examined before the trial court and did not support the prosecution against the applicant.

Additionally, the DNA examination report exonerated the applicant as the DNA extracted from the victim's clothes did not match the applicant's blood sample.

The State opposed the bail due to the gravity of the alleged offense and 11 criminal antecedents, though the applicant asserted acquittals in six of those cases.

1. Whether the applicant, Suraj Meena @ Bareek, should be granted regular bail given the non-supportive testimony of the victim and her parental aunt, and the DNA evidence exonerating him, despite the gravity of the alleged offences and his criminal antecedents?

The court considered the general principles governing the grant of regular bail, including the gravity of the offense, the strength of the prosecution case, the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the applicant's criminal antecedents, the duration of judicial custody, and the likelihood of the trial taking time to conclude.

Specifically, the conditions precedent for renewing a bail application, as previously granted by the court, were examined.

The principles relating to the evaluation of prima facie merit in the applicant's contentions during bail proceedings were also applied.

The court noted that the conditions for renewing bail, as set in the previous dismissal, were met, with both the victim and her parental aunt having been examined before the trial court.

Critically, both witnesses, who were central to the prosecution's case, did not support the allegations against the applicant.

This was further bolstered by the DNA examination report, which also exonerated the applicant.

The court found that these factors lent prima facie merit to the applicant's contentions, indicating the prosecution's case against him might be weak.

While acknowledging the gravity of the alleged offenses and the applicant's criminal antecedents (11 cases, though 6 resulted in acquittal), the court considered the potential for undue hardship due to prolonged incarceration as the trial is likely to take time.

The court also assessed the socio-economic status of the applicant and found no likelihood of him fleeing justice, tampering with evidence, or influencing remaining witnesses.

The application was allowed, recognizing that the victim and her parental aunt had not supported the prosecution's case and the DNA evidence exonerated him.

The court directed the applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to various conditions including regular court appearance, abstaining from similar offenses, not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, ensuring compliance with Section 309 Cr.P.C./346 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and marking his presence before the SHO, P.S.- Women Cell, Ujjain, on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial.