‘DNA evidence overrules minor survivor’s statement defending accused’: Himachal Pradesh High Court denies bail

Findings

• The survivor’s school record mentions her birth year to be 2007, which points out that she was a minor on the date of the incident.
• The petitioner has committed offences punishable under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act.
• The survivor stated in her statement that some unknown person, and not the petitioner, had sexually assaulted her.

• The report of DNA analysis mentions that the petitioner is the biological father and the minor is the biological mother of the baby.
• The scientific evidence of the DNA report establishes that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the minor, which resulted in her pregnancy and the delivery of a child.
• The nature of the offence and the severity of the punishment do not entitle the petitioner to bail.

Arguments

• The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, has argued that the allegations against his client are false, pointing out that the survivor has not made any statement against him.
• It was further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution’s case, while his family is suffering because of his continued detention.
• Ahuja sought bail, highlighting that the investigation is complete and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining his client in custody.
• On the contrary, the state’s counsel, additional advocate general Lokender Kutlehria, has argued that the minor was sexually assaulted by the accused and delivered a child later.
• Kutlehria also stated the survivor was a minor on the date of the incident.
• He further submitted that the DNA analysis mentions the accused as the biological father of the baby, which prima facie shows that he had sexually assaulted the minor.
• He opposed the bail plea of the man, stating that he had committed a heinous offence.

Background

• The prosecution alleged that the survivor, who is a minor, was called by the accused to visit him at his home, where she was sexually assaulted.
• In April 2025, the survivor complained of stomach pain and was taken to a hospital, where it was found that she was pregnant.
• Subsequently, she delivered a child in the hospital.

• After this, the police registered the FIR, investigated the matter and filed a chargesheet in July 2025. As per the report of the DNA analysis, the survivor was found to be the biological mother, and the petitioner was found to be the biological father of the baby.
• The minor’s statement was recorded in December 2025, where she stated that some unknown person, and not the accused, had assaulted her.