Negative DNA report and evidence of consensual relationship warrant grant of bail in POCSO proceedings.

The applicant, a 20-year-old laborer, was arrested on August 31, 2025, for the alleged kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault of a minor aged approximately 17 years and 4 months

The prosecution alleged that the victim stayed with the applicant in a hut near Jaipur for three months

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contending that the matter involved a romantic relationship where the victim joined him voluntarily

He further argued that the sexual assault allegations were made under familial pressure and that the DNA examination report exonerated him

Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the DNA evidence and the circumstances of the alleged offense

The Court's decision was governed by Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), regarding the discretionary power of the High Court to grant bail.

It emphasized the relevance of forensic evidence, noting that a DNA report not supporting the prosecution's case significantly weakens the grounds for continued detention

The Court also considered the socio-economic factors, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the lack of flight risk or potential for recidivism as primary considerations for releasing an accused pending trial

Additionally, it referenced Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the timely examination of witnesses

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since August 2025 and had no prior criminal record

In examining the merits, the Court found that the DNA examination report did not support the accusation of sexual assault, which lent prima-facie merit to the applicant’s contentions

The Court noted the victim's age (nearly 17.5 years) and the fact that she stayed with the applicant for three months, suggesting the veracity of the age and complicity were matters for trial rather than grounds for continued incarceration

Furthermore, as material prosecution witnesses had already been examined, the Court determined there was a low risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses

Considering the applicant’s age, profession, and family responsibilities, the Court found no compelling reason to prolong his incarceration

The Court held that the applicant must comply with specific conditions, including attending all hearings, refraining from committing similar offenses, and not inducing or threatening witnesses

The holding clarified that while the applicant is released, the Trial Court may cancel bail if any conditions are breached