The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant bail to a father who is accused of raping his own minor daughter.

The accused father is in jail since March 5, 2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(1), 376(2)(f), 506 and 376(AB) of IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act. As per the prosecution, the incident is preceded by a similar offence 2 years ago.

Looking at the nature of injury found all over her private parts and the query report, where the Doctor had clearly stated that her hymen was found torn and swelled due to the extreme pressure, the Indore bench of Justice Anil Verma observed, “Trust and faith that a young girl would repose in her father and the sanctity of the very relationships were destroyed by debauched and devastating acts. It is a very unfortunate that in the instant case prosecutrix is a minor and innocent girl of 12 years of age and she was raped by her own father, which is a very heinous, inhumane and shameful act”.

“In view of the barbaric sexual assault and severity of the instant crime, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant”, the bench further held.

Advocate Daniel Robert appeared for the applicant and GA Amit Rawal appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR stating that two years prior to the incident, her father had undressed her and had committed rape. Subsequent to which, on March 03, 2023, at about 2:30 AM, the father again repeated the same act and tried to rape her. Thereafter, she narrated the whole incident to her aunt.

While the applicant opposed the contention stating that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Further that the Prosecutrix did not support the prosecution story in her cross-examination and had turned hostile.

However, considering the nature and gravity of the allegation and the fact that prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court, the bench noted that “…she categorically stated against the present applicant regarding some obscene act done by the applicant including oral sex, outraging her modesty and commission of rape and also intimidated her into non-disclosure of said act. Although it is to be noted that unfortunately later on she has not supported the case of prosecution in her cross examination, but the fact remains that her cross examination was conducted after 10 days of examination-in-chief, in which anyhow she has been win-over or influenced by her father / applicant and other family members. Although the statement of the prosecutrix is well supported by the MLC and as per MLC report, redness and swelling was found over the Labia Minora and Clitoris”.

Consequentially, the bench rejected the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of CrPC.

Cause Title: XYZ v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Click here to read/download the Order