Facts
The applicant was arrested on February 5, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 07/2024 involving charges under Sections 376, 323, 506, 34, and 324 of the IPC and Section 4 of the M.P. Dharmik Swatantrata Adhiniyam, 2021.
Source reference: p. 1The complainant alleged that the applicant, posing as "Suraj Jain," induced her into a relationship, committed rape on January 28, 2024, and subsequently revealed his Muslim identity while coercing her toward religious conversion through assault and threats.
Source reference: p. 3This is the applicant's fifth bail application; previous applications were dismissed or withdrawn with liberty to renew after the examination of the prosecutrix.
Source reference: p. 1The applicant contended he was the victim of a "honey trap" orchestrated by the complainant and an associate, Chouthmal, both of whom have criminal records in Rajasthan.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in light of exculpatory DNA evidence and the current stage of the trial.
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which governs the High Court's power to grant bail.
Source reference: p. 1The court considered the penal provisions for rape (Section 376 IPC) and forced religious conversion (Section 4 of M.P. Dharmik Swatantrata Adhiniyam).
Source reference: p. 1It further relied on established principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding scientific evidence, specifically that a DNA profile mismatch can prima facie exonerate an accused.
Source reference: p. 3The principle that prolonged incarceration during trial should be avoided where the risk of tampering with material witnesses (already examined) is absent.
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Court observed that while the FSL report confirmed the presence of semen on the complainant’s vaginal slides, the DNA profile did not match the applicant's source sample, which the court noted "destroys the veracity of accusation" at this stage.
Source reference: p. 2-3The Court factored in that the material prosecution witnesses—the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Chouthmal (PW-2)—had already been examined, negating concerns regarding witness tampering.
Source reference: p. 2Regarding the State’s objection based on the applicant's criminal antecedents, the Court accepted the defense's clarification that the applicant had been acquitted in four out of five previous cases.
Source reference: p. 2-3Additionally, the Court noted a judicial vacancy in the trial court since December 2025, which would inevitably delay the conclusion of the trial.
Source reference: p. 2Given the applicant's socio-economic status as a labourer and his dependent family, the Court found no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The High Court allowed the application and directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount.
The holding was based on the prima facie exculpatory nature of the DNA report and the fact that material witnesses had already been examined.
Source reference: p. 3The Court imposed several conditions, including mandatory attendance at all hearings, a prohibition on committing similar offences, and a strict injunction against tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
Source reference: p. 4-5The trial court was directed to ensure the applicant and surety understood these conditions.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
SalmanvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in