Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently denied bail to a man, stating that the DNA test of the minor rape victim may not be in the best interest and future of the child.

“It is further pertinent to note that in the factual situation since the child is given in adoption, the DNA test of the said child may not be in the interest of the child or the future of the child,” the court said. 

The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court, led by Justice GA Sanap, heard the bail application of a man booker under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for raping a minor.

The applicant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to collect the child's sample, resulting in the absence of a DNA report. Additionally, he submitted that the ossification test's report certified the victim's age as 17 years but not exceeding 18 years, adding to the defense's perspective.

He also argued that the victim had attained the age of understanding and that the physical relationship between the applicant and her was consensual.

Furthermore, he contended that the victim had reached an age of understanding, asserting that the physical relationship between the applicant and her was consensual. 

He submitted that the applicant's prolonged incarceration of 2 years and 10 months, emphasizing that even considering the ossification test's record, there exists a margin of 2 years on either side of the age assessment.

The court in its order noted that, “Investigating Officer has stated that the child has been given in adoption and concern Institution is not disclosing the particulars of the adoptive parents. The difficulty expressed by the Investigating Officer in my view is reasonable,” 

The bench noted that even considering the report from the Radiologist regarding the ossification test, it indicates the victim's age as 17. The Medical Officer affirmed that the victim was not more than 18 years old.

Additionally, the High Court highlighted that although a chargesheet was filed, charges were not yet framed against the applicant. The bench said that the possibility of completion of trial in the near future was bleak.

Therefore, the court granted bail to the applicant while noting that further incarceration of the applicant was not warranted.

Case Title: Surender Vijay Paswan vs State of Maharashtra