The Delhi High Court has recently granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his daughter.
The court acknowledged the presence of a matrimonial dispute between the parents, implying that the father’s alleged false implication due to tutoring can’t be ruled out.
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed the girl has been residing with the mother for more than 4 years and there was an inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR.
Notably, there were many cross FIRs from the mother’s as well as the father’s side and not an iota of reference to alleged incidents of sexual assault in prior complaints by mother.
The court stated in a recent order, “Undisputedly, the allegations are serious, but this court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that there is a matrimonial dispute pending between the victim’s parents…In this factual backdrop, false implication of the petitioner by the complainant by tutoring the minor girl child who is in complainant’s custody, cannot be ruled out.”
Furthermore, “I am prima facie of the view that the above factors have the potential of creating dent in the case of the prosecution.”
The petitioner’s father, claimed marital discord with his wife and accused her of filing baseless complaints with the help of a police officer. He asserted that while their daughter lived with her mother, their minor son was in his custody.
He alleged his wife was living with a police officer who was helping her file frivolous and bogus complaints against the petitioner.
The accused was arrested in February and had been sent to judicial custody.
Noting that the incidents alleged occurred in 2019-2022, the complaint was made for the first time only in 2023, the court stated that “evidently, there is an inordinate delay in the registration of FIR”.
Observing the objective, the court stated that the custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be awarded and that detention is not supposed to be a punitive or preventive measure.
It stated, the accused can’t be kept in custody for an indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time.
Currently, the court stated, that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed but the conclusion of trial was likely to take time.
The court ordered, “In the given circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars…Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one Surety Bond of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court / Jail Superintendent/Duty Magistrate.”
The court then asked the petitioner to not communicate with or establish contact with the alleged victim or witnesses.
