Hostile testimony by material witnesses and lack of criminal antecedents warrant bail despite DNA evidence in POCSO case.

The applicant, an 18-year-old agriculturist, was accused of entering the house of a minor victim and committing penetrative sexual assault under threat of death.

Crime No. 265/2025 was registered at P.S. Kalipeeth, and the applicant was arrested on December 10, 2025.

During the trial, the victim (PW-1) and her parents (PW-2 and PW-3) turned hostile, exonerating the applicant and claiming the case arose from a "teenage romance" under family pressure.

However, a DNA report collected on February 13, 2026, substantiated the allegations of sexual assault.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail considering the hostility of material prosecution witnesses and his lack of criminal antecedents, notwithstanding the incriminating DNA report.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

It also considered the penal provisions under Sections 332(b) (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant - likely a typographical error in the judgment for BNS sexual offense sections), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 65(1) (punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, alongside Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The court relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly for young offenders with no criminal history and established social ties.

The court balanced the gravity of the offense and the incriminating nature of the DNA evidence against the fact that the primary prosecution witnesses (the victim and her parents) did not support the charges in court.

The court noted the applicant's youth (18 years), his socioeconomic background as an agriculturist, and the absence of any criminal record.

It reasoned that since the material witnesses had already been examined, there was no risk of the applicant tampering with their testimony or influencing the outcome.

Furthermore, the court observed that the trial would take time to conclude and there was no evidence suggesting a flight risk.

The holding was based on the lack of compelling reasons for continued incarceration and the unlikelihood of the applicant fleeing justice or tampering with evidence.

The release is subject to standard conditions, including regular appearance before the trial court and a prohibition against committing similar offenses or threatening witnesses.