The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that bail cannot be denied solely on the basis of grave allegations when objective scientific evidence undermines the prosecution’s core narrative. In a case involving serious sexual offences under the POCSO Act and IPC, the Court granted regular bail after DNA testing conclusively excluded the accused as the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix. This decision underscores the primacy of factual evidence over speculative allegations in bail jurisprudence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Rishi Kumar Chouhan, was arrested and remanded in custody following an FIR registered at Police Station Seoni Malwa, District Narmadapuram, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(i) r/w 376(3), 450 of the IPC and Sections 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 and 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant had established a physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage, leading to her pregnancy.
Procedural History
- 14 October 2025: Prosecutrix filed a written complaint with the police.
- 15 October 2025: Applicant was arrested and placed in judicial custody.
- Before the High Court: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Evidence submitted: DNA report conclusively showed the applicant was not the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on the grounds that he was falsely implicated, had been in custody since October 2025, and the charge sheet had already been filed. His counsel emphasized that the DNA report negated the central pillar of the prosecution’s case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits the grant of regular bail when the prosecution’s foundational allegation is contradicted by conclusive scientific evidence, even in cases involving heinous sexual offences under the POCSO Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to argue that bail is the rule and jail the exception. He contended that the DNA report, which excluded the applicant as the biological father, rendered the allegation of sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy baseless. He further submitted that prolonged custody without a credible evidentiary basis violated the applicant’s right to liberty under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel acknowledged the DNA report but argued that the allegations of deception, breach of trust, and sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage still warranted continued custody. He contended that the POCSO Act’s stringent provisions and the seriousness of the allegations justified denial of bail, irrespective of the DNA outcome.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between the gravity of the allegations and the evidentiary value of the DNA report. It held that while offences under the POCSO Act and IPC are indeed serious, the presumption of innocence remains intact until proven guilty. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested heavily on the claim that the applicant fathered the child - a claim now scientifically disproven.
"The DNA report, being an objective and scientific piece of evidence, directly undermines the factual foundation of the prosecution’s narrative. To deny bail on the basis of an allegation that has been rendered untenable by conclusive evidence would be to subvert the very purpose of bail jurisprudence."
The Court distinguished this case from those where bail is denied due to risk of tampering or flight, noting no such grounds were alleged. It emphasized that Section 483 BNSS requires courts to consider the likelihood of conviction, the nature of evidence, and the duration of custody - all factors favoring release here.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that bail must be granted when the prosecution’s core factual assertion is negated by conclusive scientific evidence, even in cases involving serious sexual offences. The applicant was released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to compliance with Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
DNA Evidence Can Override Presumptions in POCSO Cases
- Practitioners must immediately move for DNA testing in cases where paternity or biological connection is central to the allegation.
- Courts cannot rely on allegations alone when objective evidence contradicts them.
- The burden to justify continued custody shifts to the State once such evidence is produced.
Bail Under Section 483 BNSS Is Not Discretionary in the Absence of Risk
- The Court clarified that Section 483 BNSS does not permit automatic denial of bail in heinous cases.
- Courts must conduct a case-specific analysis: duration of custody, stage of trial, and evidentiary strength.
- Absence of risk of tampering or flight, combined with weak evidence, mandates release.
Prosecution Must Reassess Charges When Scientific Evidence Contradicts Allegations
- Prosecutors should consider withdrawing or amending charges if DNA or forensic reports negate key elements.
- Continuing prosecution on a discredited factual basis may invite criticism for abuse of process.
- This judgment sets a precedent for early bail in cases where biological evidence disproves the nexus alleged in the FIR.
