Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected a woman's application seeking cancellation of her husband's bail, who is accused of raping their minor daughter. Court imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on the woman, citing baseless and reckless allegations.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that the wife's allegations lacked substance and were motivated by ulterior motives. It emphasized that canceling bail is a serious matter affecting the accused's life and liberty and should not be interfered with casually.

"It is clearly noticeable that it is the mother, the present applicant herein, who has misused the process of law in inflicting bald and scandalous allegations which are on the face of it wrong as observed by the order granting bail," the bench noted. 

In dismissing the plea, although the court found that the woman's misuse of the law was evident and could not be excused, it refrained from imposing a higher penalty.

Facts in brief: 

The woman filed an application under section 156(3), CrPC on February 8, 2021, alleging that her husband had molested her daughter, while she was asleep on August 26, 2020. However, the medical examination of the victim was not done. An FIR was lodged under Section 376, 504, 506 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act against the father.

The father applied for bail which was not pressed and subsequently, on his second bail application, it was granted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act on November 1, 2021, by a detailed order. 

While granting the bail, the special judge had noticed that there was a matrimonial dispute between the woman and her husband and the medical examination of the victim was specifically refused by the woman.

The special judge had also recorded that on account of the matrimonial discord, the woman had been living separately from her husband since the year 2010 at her parental home and the couple's two daughters were also staying with her. 

Moreover, the special judge had noted that in the application under section 125 of the CrPC filed by the woman, there was no mention of the molestation incident. 

Arguments on behalf of the woman's counsel: Relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Junaid vs. State of U.P. and another (2021), he submitted that it had been directed that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC), and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) must be made a party in all POCSO Act bail applications. It was also directed that the child, her parents, or legal guardians be made parties without revealing their names, he stressed. 

He contended that in the father's second bail application, DLSA or the victim were not made a party and thus, the bail application should be canceled.

Arguments of father's counsel: He opposed the bail cancellation plea contending that the special court had considered the woman's conduct when granting bail to the father. He also emphasized that the absence of a medico-legal examination, which the mother had declined, was a key factor in the decision to grant bail.

Court's Observations: 

The single judge bench noted that while deciding a bail cancellation application, it is essential for the court to determine whether the accused has misused the granted bail. There is no evidence in the record indicating any misuse of this liberty by the accused in the present case, it pointed out. 

On the contrary, court noted that it was clearly noticeable that the woman had inflicted bald and scandalous allegations which were on the face of it wrong as observed by the order granting bail.

"The present case is a sad case, which reflects the manner in which, the fighting parents have dragged the daughter to settle the scores amongst themselves," the high court said. 

Case Title: xxx  vs.  State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. Of Home And Another