Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Of Father Accused Of Raping Minor Daughter

The Delhi High Court has set aside the bail granted to a man accused of sexually abusing, raping, and harassing his 16-year-old daughter for nearly five years, terming the trial court’s order “erroneous and misplaced.”

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna was hearing a plea filed by the minor through her mother, seeking cancellation of the June 16, 2021, bail order of the Additional Sessions Judge that had released accused father.

The FIR was registered under Sections 354, 354A, 377, 323 and 376 of the IPC along with Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Maurya Enclave, Delhi.

In her 19-page ruling, Justice Krishna described the matter as “an unfortunate case of physical and sexual exploitation of the Petitioner by none other than her own father, since she was about 10 years old, when she attained puberty.”

The Court added, “The Petitioner’s young age and vulnerability, combined with her father’s abusive and violent behaviour towards both her and her mother, prevented her from disclosing the ongoing abuse. The persistent atmosphere of fear at home prevented the Petitioner to confide in her mother or seek help from any other person.”

According to the complaint, the abuse began around 2016 when the child was in Class VII. Her father allegedly touched her inappropriately, pinched her breasts and buttocks, and ignored her objections. Complaints to her grandparents were dismissed. He was described as a sex addict obsessed with pornography, and in 2019, he began forcing his daughter to watch pornographic content with him. The minor claimed that even Google had issued him a warning about sexual content in his account. In June 2020, while she was menstruating, he allegedly inserted his finger into her vagina, leaving her traumatised.

The child remained silent out of fear that speaking out would lead to further violence against her mother, who was also subjected to abuse. The truth finally came out in June 2021 when she broke down during a counselling session with a psychiatrist. The very next day, on June 6, 2021, a written complaint was lodged, leading to the registration of the FIR.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Gurmukh Singh Arora argued that despite serious allegations of sexual abuse against the accused over a period of five to six years, beginning when the minor was only ten years old, bail had been granted to the accused within six days of the registration of the FIR. It was further contended that two mobile phones seized from the accused had been sent to the FSL, whose report supported the prosecution, and that a supplementary chargesheet had already been filed.

Contesting these submissions, the accused argued that the petition had been filed at the instance of the mother of the child, and was nothing more than an eyewash to gain advantage in matrimonial disputes. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, was attempting to play a fraud with a “cock and bull story,” and that there had been a delay in registration of the complaint.

Court, however, rejected these arguments. Justice Krishna noted, “Significantly, the child has made specific allegations that her father was a sex addict and used to compel her to see with him the pornographic films on his mobile phone. Prima facie, these allegations have been corroborated from the FSL Report of the mobile phone, which has confirmed the obscene videos being present in the mobile phone. There cannot be anything more perverse and shocking than such acts of the father, if found to be correct and true.”

Court further observed that the petitioner had made specific allegations of physical abuse of her mother, which scared and terrified her and prevented her from disclosing the incidents earlier. These allegations also found corroboration in the complaints filed by the mother before the NCW and under the DV Act.

In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court held that the learned ASJ had failed to consider the material facts and had granted bail on erroneous and misplaced grounds. The High Court observed,“Clearly, bail within nine days of registration of the FIR in such a serious offence where the investigation was yet in progress, was completely erroneous.”

Accordingly, the impugned order granting bail to the accused father was set aside. His bail bond and surety bond stood cancelled. He was directed to surrender before the learned ASJ within seven days.

With these directions, the Court disposed of the petition.

For Petitioners: Mr Gurmukh Singh Arora, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Ld. ASC for State with SI Meena, P.S. Maurya Enclave Mr. Shikhar Singh, Advocate for R-2

Case Title: D.A. Minor through her Mother and Natural Guardian Mrs. Rupi Babbar versus State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Judgment Date: 16 September 2025