Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently granted bail to a man in a rape case after the DNA report indicated that the accused was not the biological father of the baby.

he single-judge bench, presided over by Justice GA Sanap, considered a bail application filed by a man who faced charges under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.

Advocates Preshita Parab and Tripti Shetty, representing the applicant, argued that the trial court had denied the bail application citing the unavailability of the DNA report.

They contended that the DNA report, which excluded the applicant as the biological father of the baby, was now available.

The counsel contended that, despite the conclusive DNA report, the prosecution failed to undertake further investigation to identify the biological father of the child and the actual perpetrator of the crime.

Additional Public Prosecutor PN Dahbholkar argued that even if the DNA report is excluded from consideration, the firsthand account of the incident narrated by the victim and her mother must not be disregarded when deciding the bail application.

The APP stressed that the victim had no motive to falsely implicate the applicant. Furthermore, he pointed out that the applicant held a dominant position and therefore there was a possibility for pressuring and threatening the victim and other witnesses.

The bench, in its order, stated that the lack of investigation by the police indicated that the officer did not have any interest in tracing the perpetrator.

“It is to be noted that on receipt of the DNA report, excluding the accused as the biological father of the child, the Investigating Officer was required to conduct further investigation and to bring the real perpetrator of such serious crime to book. In my view, this approach indicates that the Investigating Officer is not interested to trace the real perpetrator of the crime for the reasons best known to him,” the order states.

Therefore, the court granted bail, noting that the accused cannot be kept languishing in jail for an indefinite period.

“In view of this DNA report, it is to be inferred that some person other than the accused, was also involved in the crime. His name has not been stated by the victim as well as by her mother. This mystery created in the aftermath of the DNA report, has remained unsolved. In the facts and circumstances, in my view, the accused who was arrested on 08/02/2021, cannot be kept languishing in jail for indefinite period,” the order states.

Case title: Manoj Sitam Verma vs State of Maharashtra & Anr