Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Rape Case After DNA Report Excludes Him as Biological Father of Child; Emphasizes Need for Balanced Approach in Light of Victim’s Testimony and Seriousness of Allegations Under POCSO Act

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to the petitioner in light of the DNA evidence, which did not show him as the biological father of the child born from the alleged offence. The court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the furnishing of personal and surety bonds, each in the amount of ₹50,000/-, and compliance with specified conditions.

Facts:

The petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 116/2022 registered at Police Station Katra, for offences under Sections 376 (Rape), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The complaint against the petitioner alleged that he had raped a minor girl, which led to her pregnancy and the birth of a child. The petitioner denied all allegations and argued that he was falsely implicated. The DNA analysis, conducted during the investigation, ruled out the petitioner as the biological father of the child. The prosecution, however, resisted the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which implicated the petitioner.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the DNA evidence that ruled out his paternity, weighed against the victim’s statement and other circumstances presented by the prosecution.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
2. The DNA report did not show him as the biological father of the child, thus negating the prosecution’s claim.
3. He contended that the allegations against him were motivated by certain individuals, including the maternal grandfather of the victim, who influenced the filing of the complaint.
4. The petitioner also submitted that the initial complaint against him was a result of a conspiracy to shift the blame away from the actual perpetrator.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The prosecution argued that the petitioner had committed serious and heinous offences against a minor girl.
2. The prosecutrix’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC clearly implicated the petitioner.
3. The prosecution highlighted that the DNA report alone should not be a decisive factor in granting bail and requested that the bail be denied to protect the safety of the victim.
4. It was also argued that the petitioner might influence the witnesses or abscond if released on bail.

Analysis of the Law:

The court analyzed the provisions of Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which prescribe severe penalties, including life imprisonment. It also considered the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which are rebuttable but give the prosecution an additional advantage. The court balanced the conflicting considerations of personal liberty and the interests of justice.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to various judgments, including:

1. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) – highlighting the considerations for bail in non-bailable offences.
2. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – emphasizing a flexible approach in matters of personal liberty.
3. Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) – affirming the importance of protecting individual rights in bail matters.
4. Jayanat Chatterjee v. The State of West Bengal – where the accused was granted bail based on DNA evidence negating his involvement.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that, while the charges against the petitioner were serious, the DNA report provided substantial grounds to question the allegations made by the victim. It observed that the DNA report was a key factor that negated the prosecution’s claim of paternity. Given this report and other surrounding circumstances, the court found it appropriate to grant bail, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure that the petitioner does not interfere with the investigation or the trial process.

Conclusion:

The court granted bail to the petitioner, noting that the DNA report, which excluded him as the biological father of the child, was a strong piece of evidence that warranted reconsideration of his continued detention.

Implications:

This decision underscores the significance of DNA evidence in rape cases and its impact on bail decisions, even when weighed against victim testimony. It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, ensuring that neither the victim’s rights nor the accused’s personal liberty is compromised unnecessarily. The ruling also signals that while DNA evidence is critical, it must be carefully considered in conjunction with other evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations under the POCSO Act.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Upholds Externment Order: “Habitual Offender Status Does Not Depend on Frequency Within a Single Year but on Repeated and Persistent Involvement Over a Period”