SC sets aside HC order granting bail to man accused of raping his minor daughter

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court granting bail to a man accused of raping his minor daughter, saying his incarceration is necessary in the interest of justice at least until the recording of statements of prosecution witnesses is over in the case.

The apex court, which directed the accused to surrender before the competent court within a week, passed the order on a plea filed by the girl challenging the high court”s September last year order granting bail to her father.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the counsel appearing for the state has said that the trial in the case would commence in September this year and every endeavour would be made to complete it at the earliest.

“We are thus of the view that the incarceration of respondent No. two (accused) is necessary in the interest of justice and in accordance with law at least till the time the prosecution evidence is over,” the bench said in its August 16 order.

An FIR was registered against the accused in April last year under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The girl has alleged that when she was going for her Class IV examination, the accused had sexually exploited her and as the exploitation continued, she lodged a complaint.

The top court observed that the only aspect noticed by the high court in its order granting bail was that trial in the case would take sufficiently long time.

“However, this would be contrary to the directions that POCSO cases are to be dealt with on priority. No other reason has been given,” it said.

The accused had claimed in the court that because he had frowned upon the relationship of his daughter with a person from other religion, he was being made a target.

“We are in agreement with the submission of the counsel for the appellant and respondent No. one/state that this is not a case where respondent No. two (accused) should be enlarged on bail. In fact, the impugned order does not deal with any of the aspects while granting bail and has dealt with this serious episode in a very casual manner,” the bench said, while setting aside the high court order.

It noted that the state has submitted before it that at least till the prosecution evidence is over, the accused should not be enlarged on bail.

Before the high court, the accused had alleged that he was falsely implicated in the case and the FIR was lodged after a delay of around six years of the alleged incident.