Negative DNA report and absence of criminal antecedents warrant regular bail in sexual assault prosecutions.

The applicant, a 21-year-old labourer, was arrested on January 11, 2026, following an FIR (Crime No. 18 of 2026) registered at Police Station Bilpak, District Ratlam.

The complainant alleged that on January 10, 2026, while returning home with her daughter, the applicant pulled her to the ground and committed rape, subsequently fleeing when her husband arrived.

Following the completion of the investigation, a final report was submitted to the trial court.

The applicant sought regular bail, contending false implication due to previous enmity and highlighting that the DNA examination report did not support the allegations of sexual assault.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the DNA report and the absence of criminal antecedents.

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

Section 64(1) (Punishment for rape) and Section 351(2) (Criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2026.

Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 309 of the CrPC) regarding the timely examination of witnesses.

The Court observed that the DNA examination report failed to substantiate the allegation of sexual assault by the applicant, providing prima facie merit to the defense's contention.

It noted that the investigation was complete and the final report had been filed, meaning the applicant’s continued custody was not required for interrogation.

Regarding the risk of flight or recidivism, the Court found that the applicant, a 21-year-old labourer with no prior criminal record and established family roots, was unlikely to evade the process of law or influence witnesses.

The Court emphasized that since the trial would take time to conclude, prolonged incarceration of a young applicant without compelling reasons was unnecessary.

The holding was contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount.

The Court imposed specific conditions, including mandatory attendance at all hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or inducing/threatening witnesses.

The order remains effective until the conclusion of the trial, subject to the trial court's power to cancel bail in case of a breach of conditions.