DNA Evidence Overrides Claims of Consent of Minor in POCSO Bail Plea: Chhattisgarh HC

The Chhattisgarh High Court has solidified the evidentiary weight of DNA profiling in sexual offence cases, ruling that a positive biological match serves as significant corroboration that overrides claims of a consensual 'love affair' involving a minor. The Bench underscored that where the victim is below the age of 18, alleged consent or promises of marriage offer no legal refuge against the rigors of custodial prosecution.

In a hearing presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, the Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant sought regular bail in connection with serious charges under Sections 137(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Medical Evidence and Paternity in POCSO Cases

The Chhattisgarh High Court scrutinized the testimony of the victim and the scientific evidence presented by the prosecution. The Bench noted that the victim had categorically deposed about the applicant promising marriage and subsequently establishing physical relations on multiple occasions. The Bench found that the medical records indicating pregnancy and the subsequent DNA report were pivotal in linking the applicant to the crime.

The Chhattisgarh High Court discussed that “The DNA examination report establishes that the applicant is the biological father of the child born to the victim, which provides significant corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the physical relationship between the applicant and the victim. The submission that the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant or that there was a love affair between them, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation at this stage, particularly when the prosecution case is that the victim was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.” The Chhattisharh High Court accordingly rejected his application for bail in POCSO case.

Background

The matter originated from a missing person report filed by the victim's father on May 4, 2025, after the victim disappeared from her home. Following her return on May 10, 2025, investigations revealed that the applicant had established physical relations with the victim, who was then under 18 years of age. The victim subsequently became pregnant and gave birth to a child who died shortly after delivery.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the relationship was consensual, pointing to the victim's own statement that she traveled to meet the applicant. They further challenged the age of the victim, noting the absence of an ossification test. However, the State countered that the victim's minor status at the time of the offence rendered any consent irrelevant. Given the categorical testimony of the victim and the scientific confirmation provided by the DNA report, the Chhattisgarh High Court found no merit in the bail application and rejected the same.

Case Details:
Case No.: MCRC No. 4108 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:39898
Case Title: Chhotu Yadav @ Suraj Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 17065

Also Read: Will Romeo Juliet Clause in POCSO redefine teen love?