Negative DNA profile and conclusion of victim's examination justify bail in penetrative sexual assault cases.

The applicant, Rahul Prajapati, was arrested on December 3, 2025, in connection with Crime No. 418/2025 for alleged offences including kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault under the BNS, POCSO Act, and SC/ST (PA) Act

The victim (17 years and 3 months) was reported missing on December 1, 2025.

Upon appearing before the police on December 3, she initially made no allegations of sexual assault; however, in a subsequent statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, she alleged the applicant committed penetrative sexual assault.

This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS follows the withdrawal of a previous application and the subsequent examination of the victim (P.W.1) before the trial court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of contradictions between the victim's statements and the medical evidence

2. Whether there exists a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing justice if released, considering the progress of the trial and his socio-economic background

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

It also considered the evidentiary weight of statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS and the implications of a negative DNA examination report in sexual offence cases.

The court adhered to the principles of criminal jurisprudence concerning "judicial custody as a last resort," focusing on the applicant's criminal antecedents, socio-economic status, and the likelihood of recidivism.

The Court observed that while the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS alleged penetrative sexual assault, the DNA examination report revealed the absence of a Y-Chromosome STR DNA Profile in the victim's source material, which prima facie contradicted the prosecution's claim.

The Court noted that the victim (P.W.1) had already been examined before the trial court, significantly diminishing the risk of the applicant influencing or tampering with her testimony.

The applicant is a 29-year-old labourer with no reported criminal history and has the responsibility of supporting aged parents.

The court reasoned that since the veracity of the complicity would be determined during the trial and there was no evidence suggesting the applicant would flee or re-offend, continued incarceration was unnecessary.

The Court held that the contentions regarding false implication and the scientific evidence had prima facie merit for the purpose of bail.

The release is subject to conditions, including mandatory appearance at all hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial.