Positive DNA Match and Victim's Minority Preclude Bail in Grave Sexual Offence Allegations

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 23 of 2025, registered at Police Station Muni-ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant, a mason by profession, enticed away the complainant’s 13-year-old minor daughter.

Following an investigation, the police submitted a chargesheet.

DNA analysis conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) revealed that a mixed DNA profile from the victim’s vaginal swab and pubic hair matched the DNA profiles of both the applicant and the victim.

The applicant has been in custody since March 7, 2025.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the allegations, the age of the victim, and the available scientific evidence.

Sections 65(1) (punishment for sexual assault), 126(2) (wrongful restraint), and 137(2) (kidnapping) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Sections 3, 4, 17, and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which govern offenses of penetrative sexual assault and abetment involving minors.

Bail may be denied based on the gravity of the offense, the age of the victim, and the strength of the scientific evidence (DNA profiling) collected during investigation.

The court weighed the applicant's arguments—namely his claims of innocence, his status as a permanent resident of Haridwar, the completion of the investigation, and the anticipated duration of the trial—against the gravity of the prosecution's evidence.

The court emphasized that the victim is "admittedly a minor" of 13 years.

Crucially, the court relied on the FSL report, noting that the DNA profiling prima facie established the complicity of the applicant by matching his biological samples with those found on the victim's person and clothing.

The court reasoned that the scientific evidence, coupled with the serious nature of the sexual offense against a child, outweighed the applicant’s plea for liberty at this stage.

The court found no "good ground" to enlarge the applicant on bail given the gravity of the allegations and the corroborated scientific evidence.

Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.