Negative DNA report prima facie exonerating accused justifies bail following examination of material prosecution witnesses.

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.

The 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.

This is the applicant's fifth bail application; previous applications were dismissed or withdrawn with liberty to renew after the examination of the prosecutrix.

The 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.

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

The court considered the penal provisions for rape (Section 376 IPC) and forced religious conversion (Section 4 of M.P. Dharmik Swatantrata Adhiniyam).

It further relied on established principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding scientific evidence, specifically that a DNA profile mismatch can prima facie exonerate an accused.

The principle that prolonged incarceration during trial should be avoided where the risk of tampering with material witnesses (already examined) is absent.

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.

The 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.

Regarding 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.

Additionally, the Court noted a judicial vacancy in the trial court since December 2025, which would inevitably delay the conclusion of the trial.

Given the applicant's socio-economic status as a labourer and his dependent family, the Court found no compelling reason to continue his incarceration.

The holding was based on the prima facie exculpatory nature of the DNA report and the fact that material witnesses had already been examined.

The 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.

The trial court was directed to ensure the applicant and surety understood these conditions.