The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that the DNA report excluding him as the biological father of the prosecutrix’s child was a significant piece of prima facie evidence while considering whether his continued incarceration was justified.
Justice Prateek Jalan allowed the bail application in a case registered under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
According to the prosecution, the 14-year-old prosecutrix alleged that she had accompanied a neighbour to a garment factory, where she consumed food after which she became unconscious. She claimed that she regained consciousness about two hours later with pain in her head and private parts but was unaware of what had transpired. About a month before the FIR was registered, she was taken to a hospital with stomach pain, where it was discovered that she was pregnant. While the FIR named the accused, the prosecutrix later stated in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 that she did not know who had committed the sexual act that resulted in her pregnancy.
The accused relied on the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, which concluded that he was not the biological father of the prosecutrix’s newborn child. It was argued that this material was relevant while considering the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act at the stage of bail.
Opposing the plea, the State and counsel for the prosecutrix contended that the allegations involved a grave offence against a minor and that the DNA report merely ruled out paternity without excluding the possibility of sexual assault.
The High Court observed that although offences under the POCSO Act are serious, courts must examine the prima facie material before deciding whether continued custody is warranted. It noted that the prosecutrix had stated she was unconscious during the alleged incident and had subsequently stated that she did not know who had assaulted her. In this backdrop, the DNA report excluding the accused as the biological father assumed significance at the stage of considering bail.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jayanta Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 537/2020, where bail had been granted in similar circumstances after a DNA report excluded the accused as the biological father of the prosecutrix’s child. Taking note that the accused had remained in custody since March 2025, that the supplementary charge sheet had already been filed, and that he had no previous criminal antecedents, the Court held that his further incarceration was not justified.
Accordingly, the High Court directed his release on regular bail, subject to conditions, while clarifying that its observations were confined to deciding the bail application and would not affect the merits of the trial.