Forensic DNA evidence linking the accused to the deceased justified denying bail despite prolonged incarceration.

The two petitions arose from FIR No. 0426/2025, registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), concerning the death of Rahul, whose body was found with multiple head and facial injuries.

The prosecution relied, among other things, on CCTV footage said to show three men at the location and on a forensic report finding the deceased’s DNA profile on blood recovered from Prem @ Sagar’s T-shirt and jeans, as well as on the CCL’s clothing.

Prem had been in custody since 14 May 2025.

He challenged the order framing charge against him and sought regular bail.

His earlier bail applications had been disposed of or withdrawn; the present application was his third before the High Court.

The trial was pending, with prosecution evidence listed for 2 December 2026.

1. Whether the order framing charge against Prem disclosed illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision, including whether the material raised grave suspicion sufficient to sustain the charge.

2. Whether Prem was entitled to regular bail in view of his custody, age and lack of antecedents, weighed against the gravity of the offence and the forensic material.

At the charge stage, the court may sift the material to determine whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists, but should not conduct a trial on the evidence; revisional interference with a charge order is sparing and is not an occasion to reappreciate evidence absent glaring perversity.

These principles were drawn from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4; State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688; and Vijay Partap Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8640.

Section 250 BNSS requires reasons to be recorded for discharge.

For bail, the court must undertake a prima facie assessment without conducting a mini-trial, considering the accusation, punishment, supporting evidence, risks of witness interference and the circumstances of the case; the seriousness of a murder charge and incriminating material may outweigh custody and anticipated delay.

The court relied on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, (2026) 8 SCC 223, and the bail principles referred to therein from Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi.

It also considered Sarnam Verma @ Suraj v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), BAIL APPLN. 2164/2025, and Dineet v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8603, on weighing prolonged custody against the seriousness of the charge and the evidence.

On revision, the court found that the petitioner had been apprehended on the day of the incident and that the deceased’s DNA profile was reported on blood recovered from his clothes.

Whether the CCTV identification, informer’s role and disclosure statements were reliable was for trial; those matters did not establish a basis for revisional interference at the charge stage.

On bail, the same forensic material was a significant prima facie circumstance.

The court considered Prem’s age, absence of antecedents and approximately 17 months’ custody, but held that these factors did not outweigh the gravity of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and the incriminating forensic report.

It also dismissed the regular-bail application.

Prem was permitted to renew his bail prayer after the forensic witnesses are examined, or if the trial does not progress materially within six months from the decision.