In a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Karnataka High Court granted regular bail to an accused in a rape case, holding that DNA evidence excluding paternity creates a reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant bail. The judgment underscores that while DNA reports are not conclusive, they can serve as mitigating factors in bail considerations, particularly when the accused has no criminal antecedents and custodial interrogation is not required.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sanjeev Naik @ Sanju, was accused of raping a 20-year-old unmarried woman under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2), and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The victim alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her multiple times without her consent, both at his house and in a nearby forest. She subsequently delivered a baby, and a complaint was filed against the petitioner.
Key Facts
- The victim, aged 20 and unmarried, delivered a baby allegedly as a result of the sexual intercourse
- The victim’s statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) recorded that she had accompanied the petitioner to his house and a forest on multiple occasions
- The victim stated that the petitioner would send her upstairs whenever children entered the house
- A DNA report excluded the petitioner as the father of the victim’s baby
- The petitioner has been in custody for 9 months and the charge sheet has been filed
- The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and claims the act was consensual
Procedural History
- Crime No. 100/2025: FIR registered at Hansabhavi Police Station for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2), and 49 BNS
- C.C. No. 1043/2025: Case pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur
- 22.06.2026: Criminal Petition No. 100540 of 2026 filed under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS) seeking regular bail
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought enlargement on regular bail, arguing that:
- The DNA report excluded him as the father of the victim’s baby, creating doubt about the prosecution’s case
- He has been in custody for 9 months and custodial interrogation is not required
- He has no criminal antecedents and is willing to cooperate with the trial
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether DNA evidence excluding paternity, combined with the absence of criminal antecedents and the filing of the charge sheet, justifies the grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS) in a rape case where the victim alleges non-consensual intercourse.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The DNA report excluded the petitioner as the father of the victim’s baby, creating a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case
- The petitioner has been in custody for 9 months and custodial interrogation is not required
- The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is willing to cooperate with the trial
- The act appears to be consensual, as the victim accompanied the petitioner on multiple occasions
For the Respondents
- The DNA report is only a piece of evidence and requires further corroboration
- The victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS alleges non-consensual intercourse on multiple occasions
- The mere exclusion of paternity does not conclusively absolve the petitioner of the offence
- The petitioner’s custodial presence is necessary for a fair trial
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the mitigating factors in favour of the petitioner, particularly the DNA report, which excluded him as the father of the victim’s baby. While acknowledging that the DNA report alone is not conclusive, the Court held that it creates a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case at this stage. The Court emphasized that the entire case must be considered based on evidence adduced during the trial, but the doubt created by the DNA report was sufficient to warrant bail.
The Court also considered the following:
"The DNA report is one of the mitigating factors in favour of the petitioner to consider his bail petition. The report creates a doubt about the case of the prosecution at this stage."
Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner has been in custody for 9 months, the charge sheet has been filed, and there is no allegation of habitual offending or prior convictions. These factors, combined with the DNA report, tilted the balance in favour of granting bail.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to the following conditions:
- Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum
- Punctual attendance before the Trial Court on each posting unless exempted
- Cooperation with the trial and no tampering with evidence or witnesses
- No threats, inducements, or promises to anyone acquainted with the facts
- No leaving the jurisdiction of the police station without prior intimation
- No commission of offences during the bail period
What This Means For Similar Cases
DNA Evidence as a Mitigating Factor
- Bail considerations in sexual offence cases may now include DNA evidence as a mitigating factor, even if it is not conclusive
- Courts may grant bail where DNA reports exclude paternity oraternity, particularly when combined with other factors like absence of criminal antecedents and filing of the charge sheet
- Practitioners should argue that DNA evidence creates reasonable doubt, warranting bail under Section 439 CrPC (Section 483 BNSS)
Limits of DNA Evidence in Bail Proceedings
- DNA reports are not conclusive and require corroboration during trial
- Bail may still be denied if other evidence (e.g., victim statements, medical reports) strongly implicates the accused
- Courts will continue to balance mitigating factors (e.g., DNA reports, custody duration) against the gravity of the offence and prosecution’s case
Procedural Safeguards in Bail Orders
- Strict conditions (e.g., personal bonds, sureties, attendance requirements) will likely be imposed to ensure cooperation with the trial
- Courts may include non-tampering clauses to prevent witness intimidation or evidence tampering
- Jurisdictional restrictions may be imposed to prevent absconding
