A Mother Won’t Put Her Daughter’s Life To Jeopardy To Get Even With Husband: Delhi HC Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Daughter

The Delhi High Court refused to grant bail to a man who was accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter.

The Court was dealing with a bail application preferred by the accused father, seeking bail in connection with the FIR registered against him for the offences under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad observed, “… the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the present FIR has been lodged by the Complainant because of matrimonial discord with the Petitioner herein, cannot be accepted by this Court. In the opinion of this Court, a mother would not put the life of her own daughter to jeopardy and make her suffer an investigation and questioned by the Magistrates and Lawyers in Court, only to get even with her husband.”

Advocate Sheel Pathak appeared for the petitioner/accused while APP Tarang Srivastava appeared for the respondent/State.

Brief Facts -

An FIR was lodged on the complaint of the victim’s mother who stated that the petitioner-accused i.e., her husband/victim’s father used to drink and when she used to stop him, he used to beat her. It was stated that in 2023, at 11:00 p.m., the accused came home from work and asked the complainant for dinner. Their daughter and son were sleeping in one room at that point of time. It was further stated that when the complainant was waiting for the accused with dinner in another room, her son came inside and stated that the accused sent him from the other room. Allegedly, when the complainant went to the other room where her daughter was sleeping, she found that the accused laid the victim on top of him and had taken out her undergarments.

It was alleged that the accused had also taken out his undergarments and was trying to insert his private part in the victim’s private part. Seeing this, the complainant took away the victim from the accused and on enquiring from the victim, she found that the accused allegedly used to insert his fingers and private part in her private part for the past 5-6 months. It was found that he used to cover her mouth with his hands so that she cannot scream. The victim also told her mother (complainant) that the accused also used to put his private part in her mouth. Based on this, an FIR was lodged against him and he was thereafter arrested. Hence, the accused sought bail before the High Court.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “Petitioner in the present case is the father of the victim and the acts alleged against the Petitioner comes within the definition of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(n) of the POCSO Act. A reading of the complaint given by the Complainant to the Police, the statement given by the victim to the doctors, statement of the victim given to the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and deposition of the victim in her cross-examination shows that the stand of the victim has been consistent.”

The Court added that granting bail to the petitioner, who is accused of committing the offence on her own daughter, at this stage, may lead to defeating the purpose of the objective which was kept in mind while enacting this legislation (POCSO Act).

The Court further said that, paramount consideration is to be given to the well-being of the child whose mental psyche is vulnerable, impressionable, and is in a developing stage.

“The long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse are, at many times, insurmountable. An act of sexual assault or sexual harassment, therefore, has the potential to cause mental trauma to the child and may dictate their thought process for the years to come. It may hinder the normal social growth of the child and lead to various psychosocial problems which could require psychological intervention”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and denied bail to the accused.

Cause Title- Sabib v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6864)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Sheel Pathak

Respondent: APP Tarang Srivastava and Advocate Urvashi Jain.

Click here to read/download the Judgment