Delhi HC Rejects Father’s Bail In Minor’s Sexual Abuse Case

Sexual Abuse Case

The Delhi High Court has revoked the bail granted to a man accused of sexually abusing his 16-year-old daughter, terming the trial court’s order “perverse,” “erroneous,” and based on irrelevant considerations.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the accused father to surrender within seven days, cancelling both his bail and surety bonds.

Allegations Of Sexual Abuse

The survivor, identified as “D” in court proceedings, alleged that her father began abusing her shortly after she entered puberty. She claimed that he touched her inappropriately, forced her to watch pornographic content, and sexually assaulted her. The abuse continued for several years, with the father physically assaulting her mother whenever she resisted.

Delayed Reporting Not Unusual In Child Abuse Cases

The court acknowledged that delayed reporting is not unusual in cases involving child victims who live in fear. Justice Krishna emphasized that the gravity of the offense cannot be overlooked and ignored merely by terming it as an outcome of a matrimonial dispute. The court criticized the trial court’s approach, calling it a distortion of the circumstances.

Forensic Evidence Supports Victim’s Testimony

The High Court underlined that the forensic examination of the father’s phone confirmed the presence of obscene videos, lending weight to the victim’s testimony. The court also raised concerns over alleged police bias, noting claims that a senior officer related to the accused’s family influenced the investigation.

The court flagged the premature return of seized SIM cards as a serious lapse that could have allowed tampering of digital evidence. This, combined with the alleged police bias, raises questions about the thoroughness and impartiality of the investigation.

Key Considerations

The High Court reiterated that while bail should not be cancelled mechanically, it can be revoked if the granting order is itself perverse, arbitrary, or based on irrelevant grounds. The court stressed the distinction between “revocation,” where the original order is flawed, and “cancellation,” which follows misuse of liberty by the accused after release.

Trial Court’s Failure To Consider Material Facts

The High Court found that the trial court had failed to consider material facts and had granted bail while the investigation remained incomplete. Therefore, the court set aside the relief, directing the accused father to surrender before the learned Additional Sessions Judge within seven days.

Court’s Observations

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “There cannot be anything more grave than a child being abused by her own father, who gave her birth and holds the pious duty and responsibility of ensuring her safety.” This statement underscores the court’s commitment to prioritizing the safety and well-being of child victims in cases of abuse.

Conclusion

Court’s decision to overturn the bail granted to the accused father sends a strong message about the court’s stance on child abuse cases.