Refusal to Undergo DNA Testing and Consistent Victim Testimony Bars Bail in Aggravated Sexual Assault Cases

The applicant, Mohit, filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding FIR No. 0358 of 2025.

It is alleged that on 13.08.2025, the applicant enticed a minor victim and took her from her home on a motorcycle to an abandoned hostel in Shyamnagar Ambedkar Colony, Roorkee, where he forcefully raped her.

The defense argued that the victim's mother did not support the prosecution and that the case was a result of a rent dispute between the families.

Conversely, the State highlighted the victim's consistent statements and the fact that the applicant refused to provide a blood sample for DNA sequencing.

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to enlarge the applicant on bail under Section 483 of BNSS in light of the gravity of the allegations and the conduct of the accused.

2. Whether the refusal to provide a DNA sample and the consistent statements of a minor victim under the POCSO Act weigh against the granting of bail.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the power of the High Court to grant bail.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically Sections 78(1), 137(2), 64(2)(m) (relating to punishment for rape), and 351(3) (criminal intimidation).

Sections 11(iv)/12 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which strictly govern aggravated penetrative sexual assault against minors.

The court reasoned that the evidence provided by the minor victim remained consistent across her police statement, court testimony, and medical examination, establishing a prima facie case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The court dismissed the defense’s argument regarding a rent dispute, focusing instead on the applicant’s refusal to provide a blood sample for DNA sequencing—a factor the court interpreted as creating a strong apprehension of guilt and a desire to avoid linkage to the crime.

The court observed that the late-night abduction and subsequent threats of dire consequences further militated against the applicant's release.

The High Court of Uttarakhand rejected the bail application of the applicant, Mohit, as ordered by Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.