The Bombay High Court approved bail for a man accused of rape following a DNA report showing he wasn't the biological father of the baby involved in the case.

The bench, headed by Justice GA Sanap, reviewed a bail petition submitted by a man accused under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.

Advocate Preshita Parab and Tripti Shetty, representing the applicant, contended that the bail application had been rejected by the trial court due to the absence of the DNA report. They argued that the DNA report, which conclusively ruled out the applicant as the biological father of the baby, was now accessible and should be taken into consideration.

The counsel argued that, despite the conclusive DNA report, the prosecution neglected to conduct a thorough investigation to identify the actual biological father of the child and the true perpetrator of the crime. In response, Additional Public Prosecutor PN Dahbholkar asserted that even without considering the DNA report, the firsthand account provided by the victim and her mother should not be overlooked in determining the bail application.

The APP emphasized that the victim had no motive to falsely accuse the applicant. Additionally, he highlighted the applicant's influential position, suggesting a potential for pressuring and intimidating the victim and other witnesses. The bench, in its ruling, highlighted that the absence of a comprehensive investigation by the police suggested a lack of proactive efforts to identify the perpetrator. This indicated a lack of dedication or interest on the part of the investigating officer in tracing the individual responsible for the crime.

“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.

Consequently, the court granted bail, acknowledging that holding the accused in jail indefinitely wasn't justified given the circumstances.

“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.