Uttarakhand HC Denies Bail To Father Accused Of Sexually Assaulting 4-Year-Old Son, Citing DNA Evidence

The applicant was in judicial custody in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Selaqui, Dehradun, alleging offences under Sections 115, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant sexually assaulted his four-year-old son and then abused and pushed the complainant before fleeing.

Seeking bail, the applicant relied on alleged inconsistencies in the child’s statements and the parents’ accounts, an eight-day delay in the medical examination, and the absence of independent witnesses and clothing evidence. He had been in custody since 7 June 2025.

The State opposed bail, relying on DNA evidence said to match the applicant’s profile with profiles obtained from exhibits collected at the scene and from the child’s anal slide.

The alleged offences were punishable under Sections 115, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 5(m)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court applied the bail-stage principle of assessing the circumstances and material presented on the application, including the nature of the allegations and the prosecution evidence, without determining the merits of the case. The judgment cites no statutory bail provision or precedent as the basis for that assessment.

The Court considered the victim’s age—about four years—and the prosecution’s reliance on DNA evidence. The State submitted that profiles from exhibits collected at the scene and the child’s anal slide matched the applicant’s blood-sample profile.

The Court held that, at the bail stage, this scientific evidence weighed against the applicant’s request; it therefore found that the applicant had not made out a case for bail, notwithstanding the defence submissions.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and were not an expression of opinion on the merits. The FSL report was taken on record, and the Registry was directed to paginate it.