Negative DNA report and lack of criminal antecedents warrant bail in POCSO and rape prosecutions.

The applicant, a 19-year-old labourer, sought bail in connection with Crime No. 234/2024 involving charges of kidnapping and repetitive sexual assault of a minor.

The victim’s brother reported her missing on 21.03.2024; upon recovery on 23.03.2024, she alleged the applicant and a friend forcibly took her to Dungar, where the applicant committed rape.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.12.2025.

During the investigation, a DNA examination report was conducted, which found no Y-chromosome STR DNA profile from the source material of the victim, effectively exonerating the applicant.

The applicant moved this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, citing a romantic relationship, doubtful age determination of the victim, and a clean criminal record.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of the DNA evidence and the socio-economic status of the accused?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 of the CrPC), governing the discretionary powers of the High Court to grant bail.

Substantive offenses defined under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), and 376(3) of the IPC and Sections 5L/6 of the POCSO Act.

The court relied on the principle that bail considerations must weigh the gravity of the offense against factors such as the duration of trial, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence.

The Court noted that while the state opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense, the prosecution admitted the applicant had no prior criminal record.

The Court emphasized the significance of the DNA report, which failed to link the applicant to the victim, thereby weakening the prosecution's immediate case for continued incarceration.

The judge reasoned that since the trial would take time to conclude and the determination of the victim's age and the veracity of the allegations are matters for trial, the applicant's young age (19 years) and status as a labourer with deep family roots made him an unlikely flight risk.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the applicant was capable of influencing witnesses or recidivism, concluding there was no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The Court held that the lack of corroborative DNA evidence and the applicant’s socio-economic status justified release.

The grant of bail is subject to five conditions: mandatory court attendance, non-repetition of similar offenses, prohibition against threatening witnesses, prohibition against evidence tampering, and compliance with Section 346 of the BNSS regarding the examination of witnesses.