Negative DNA report regarding penetrative sexual assault justifies grant of bail in POCSO proceedings.

The applicant, a 24-year-old mechanic, was arrested on January 29, 2026, following the registration of Crime No. 73 of 2026 at Police Station Biaora, District Rajgarh

He was accused of kidnapping a 16-year-old minor and subjecting her to penetrative sexual assault

The applicant moved for bail, contending that the case originated from a romantic relationship and that the charges were leveled due to pressure from the victim's family

He further highlighted that the investigation was complete, a final report had been filed, and the DNA examination report did not support the allegations of penetrative sexual assault

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in light of the DNA report and the applicant’s personal circumstances

The Court primarily exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (the successor to Section 439 of the CrPC), regarding the grant of bail

Substantive charges were examined under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m), 65(1), and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3/4(2) and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012

The Court also referenced Section 346 of the BNSS to ensure the timely examination of witnesses during the trial

The Court reasoned that the DNA examination report significantly weakened the prosecution's case as it did not substantiate the allegation of penetrative sexual assault

Justice Kalgaonkar observed that the applicant, being a 24-year-old with no criminal antecedents and a stable profession as a mechanic, posed a low risk of recidivism or fleeing from justice

The Court noted that the veracity of the victim's age and the alleged complicity would be matters for trial, but prima facie, the applicant’s contentions had merit

Given that the investigation was complete and the applicant lacked the socio-economic influence to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, the Court found no compelling reason for continued incarceration

The Court held that continued detention was unnecessary given the evidentiary discrepancies and the applicant's background

The relief was granted subject to the applicant furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount, alongside conditions including regular appearance before the trial court and a prohibition on contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence