New Delhi [India], September 18 : The Delhi High Court has overturned the bail granted to a man accused of sexually abusing his 16-year-old daughter, ruling that the trial court's order was "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.
The court 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."
The survivor, identified as "D" in court proceedings, alleged that her father began abusing her shortly after she entered puberty. Over several years, she said he touched her inappropriately, forced her to watch pornographic content, and sexually assaulted her. She added that whenever she resisted, he physically assaulted her mother in her presence, instilling fear that prevented her from speaking out.
In June 2020, the girl alleged that her father molested her during menstruation. Later the same night, she witnessed him forcing unnatural sex on her mother. The following day, she and her mother left their home.
It was only in June 2021, during a counselling session with a psychiatrist, that the teenager disclosed the full extent of the abuse. A complaint led to registration of an FIR under IPC provisions for sexual offences and assault, along with charges under the POCSO Act.
Despite these allegations, the Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to the father within a week of his arrest. The trial court reasoned that the charges were old, tied to a matrimonial dispute, and that the victim no longer lived with him, High Court noted.
The Court criticised this approach, calling it a distortion of the circumstances.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasised that delay in reporting was not unusual in cases involving child victims who live in fear. "The gravity of the offence cannot be overlooked and ignored merely by terming it as an outcome of the matrimonial dispute," she remarked.
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. It also raised concerns over alleged police bias, noting claims that a senior officer related to the accused's family influenced the investigation. The premature return of seized SIM cards was flagged as a serious lapse that could have allowed tampering of digital evidence.
Relying on recent Supreme Court judgments, 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. It stressed the distinction between "revocation," where the original order is flawed, and "cancellation," which follows misuse of liberty by the accused after release.
Finding that the trial court had failed to consider material facts and had granted bail while the investigation remained incomplete, the High Court set aside the relief.
"The impugned order granting bail to Respondent No. 2 is set aside. His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled. The Respondent is directed to surrender before the learned ASJ within seven days," the court ordered, directing the trial court to ensure compliance.