New Delhi: Massaging his daughter’s private parts, showing her pornography against her will, and sexually exploiting her since she was all of 10-years-old—these are some of the charges on which a Pitampura man was arrested back in June 2021. He was, however, let off on bail in less than ten days of his arrest despite being charged under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Delhi High Court Tuesday recalled the bail granted to him in June 2021. In doing so, the court also directed that he be sent back to prison within a period of seven days.
The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who decided to recall his bail, said it was earlier granted by the lower court on “erroneous and misplaced grounds”.
In the present case, the minor girl, now 16, moved court through her mother, seeking to set aside the bail order from 15 June, 2021.
Also Read: From child protection to ‘moral policing’ tool: How POCSO Act is leaving courts conflicted
Unsettling story behind the case
In her plea, the minor argued that bail was granted to the father, ignoring the gravity and the nature of the offences of which he is accused.
This left a “very deep scar” on her psyche, she said, adding that grant of bail in such cases violated all established canons of criminal jurisprudence.
Since the girl’s parents got married in December 2003, there was constant violence in the household—physical, emotional and verbal, along with financial abuse—allegedly at the hands of the husband. Over a year later, their daughter was born, who over the years witnessed these constant quarrels and abuses inflicted by her father on her mother.
According to the plea, soon after she turned 13, her father allegedly inappropriately touched the minor. When she was in the seventh standard, he allegedly began pinching her buttocks and breasts, on various occasions. Although she complained of this to her paternal grandparents, they simply ignored her, and even went so far as to scold her one day when she woke up screaming on finding her father’s hand massaging her private parts, she said.
On one occasion, her father, who she said was a sex addict, also allegedly forced her to watch pornographic material with him on his phone. Afraid of the possible aftermath which could occur, the girl endured all of these hardships silently.
Frequent domestic quarrels between the parents where the father made sure his daughter saw him beating up the mother, and abusing her, also terrified the girl whilst she was merely 12, she said. As a result, she was hesitant to file a complaint. In June 2020, the girl’s maternal uncle took her along with her mother away to Kanpur, following which the mother filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act 2005, against the father.
A year later, in 2021, the girl filed a complaint with the police, leading to the father’s arrest on 7 June that year. Only days later, however, on 15 June, he was granted bail.
Grounds for bail & HC’s reasoning
The minor girl argued that her father was granted bail on account of “entirely irrelevant and vague considerations”.
His maternal uncle was an assistant commissioner of police at the time, the girl said, adding that the police, in the most bizarre and arbitrary manner, seized two of her father’s mobile phones and returned the SIM cards to him, which could have led to the possibility of him deleting all incriminating, pornographic material which he forced his daughter to watch.
It has also been reliably learnt that this was done at the behest of a high-ranking officer of the Delhi Police, the petitioner submitted.
She also told the court that the high-ranking police officer used his influence to ensure the release of her father, while adding that this was very demoralising and fearful for her.
Terming this as an “unfortunate case of physical and sexual exploitation,” the high court took into consideration factors like the abuse the girl suffered at the hands of her own father, since she was only 10.
Her young age and vulnerability, combined with her father’s alleged abusive and violent behaviour towards the girl and her mother, prevented her from disclosing the ongoing abuse to the authorities, the high court noted in its order Tuesday. The persistent atmosphere of fear at home prevented her from confiding in her mother initially, it added.
The high court also pointed out that there is a difference between recalling one’s bail and cancelling it. While the former refers to revocation, only if the bail had not been granted based on relevant facts and merits, the latter is prompted by subsequent events and violations of the bail terms, it said.
Recalling the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Ashok Dhankad vs State of NCT, the court said the grant of bail in serious criminal offences should be based on factors like the nature of the accusations, the manner in which the crime has been committed, the gravity of the alleged offence, the role of the accused, his criminal antecedents and the possibility of him tampering witnesses, and repeating the offences, if released on bail.
Finally, the high court said that it is evident that the Additional Sessions Judge had failed to consider the material facts and aspects of the case in granting bail to the girl’s father.
(Edited by Kasturi Walimbe)
Also Read: DNA tests by botanist, a ‘confession’ & a missing witness—2 acquitted by SC in minor’s rape-murder