Delhi HC grants bail to father accused of raping minor daughter noting delay in FIR, matrimonial dispute with wife

New Delhi [India], August 14 : The Delhi High Court on Monday granted bail to a man accused of raping his minor daughter noting the delay in lodging the FIR and the matrimonial dispute and cross cases with his wife.
The alleged incidents are reported to be of May 2019, November 2020 and February 2022 and the FIR was lodged in February 2023. The minor victim has been staying with her mother for the last four years.
The High Court while granting bail said that the false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out in the facts of the case.
Justice Vikas Mahajan granted bail to the accused after considering the submissions and status report filed by the Delhi Police. The court has imposed conditions including the petitioner shall not leave the city without prior permission of the court.
The High Court said, "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; there are cross FIRs/complaints lodged both from the complainant’s as well as from the petitioner’s side."
"There is also an inordinate delay in the registration of the present FIR; in the two FIRs lodged earlier by the complainant, there is no reference to the alleged three incidents; and the victim is residing with the complainant (mother) for the past more than 4 years," the high court said.
Justice Mahajaj said, "In this factual backdrop, the false implication of the petitioner by the complainant by tutoring the minor girl child who is in complainant’s custody, cannot be ruled out. The High Court also considered that the petitioner has a minor son to look after and said, "Further, this court cannot be unmindful to the peculiar facts of the case that a son aged about 10 years 08 months, who is in the custody of the petitioner, requires attention and care of his father the petitioner herein."
The court took note of the allegation and said that a perusal of the chargesheet shows that the victim is residing with the complainant (mother) from the year 2019 and the incidents alleged are of May 11, 2019, November 24, 2020, and February 6, 2022, but the complaint has been made for the first time with regard to these incidents only on February 1, 2023.
"Evidently, there is an inordinate delay in the registration of FIR," Justice Mahajan said.
The case of the prosecution is that Ms. ‘G’ (mother of the victim) made a complaint on February 1, 2023, alleging that she had started living separately from her husband (the petitioner/accused herein) since April 2019.
It was submitted that when the complainant left her matrimonial house, both her children, a minor son and a minor daughter, were residing with their father the petitioner. On May 12, 2019, her daughter (victim) left her father’s house and shifted with her mother to the rented accommodation, wherein her mother was residing. When the victim left the petitioner’s house, the petitioner would visit the complainant’s rented accommodation in the absence of the complainant, to meet their daughter.
It was alleged that on January 13, 2023, the victim disclosed to her mother (complainant) that on May 11, 2019, when the victim was at her father’s house and no other member was present, the petitioner (father) took off his clothes and molested the victim under the influence of alcohol.
The victim also disclosed that she was sexually assaulted by her father (petitioner) at her mother’s rented accommodation on November 24, 2020, and February 6, 2022, when her mother was away, the prosecution alleged.
An FIR was registered on February 2, 2023 under POCSO. During the course of the investigation, a medical examination of the victim was conducted and her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded.
Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on February 21, 2023, and sent to judicial custody on February 22, 2023, and since then the petitioner is in judicial custody.
In the status report filed by the State, it has been mentioned that after the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the concerned court and the case is pending trial.
Advocate Pradeep Kumar Arya, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that various cross-cases have been filed by the complainant as well as the petitioner against each other. He also furnished the details of as many as 11 FIRS /complaints/civil suits which have been lodged/instituted either by the complainant or by the petitioner or his mother have been mentioned.
He also submitted that the complainant at present is residing with one Police officer and is helping her to file frivolous and bogus complaints/FIRs against the petitioner.
It was further submitted that the victim who is now residing with the complainant for more than 4 years has been tutored by the
complainant and every attempt is being made to alienate the victim from her father the petitioner.
On the other hand, the bail plea was opposed by the prosecution. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Richa Dhawan for the State has argued on the lines of the status report.
It was submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is of serious nature. She further submitted that the evidence of
the complainant and the victim are yet to be recorded.
She also submitted that in case the petitioner is released, he may intimidate, induce or threaten the victim, her father. Therefore the bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.