Petitioner Was Bound to Protect the Victim—Instead, He Violated Her: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail to Father Accused of Raping Minor Daughter

“Prima facie, her version has to be accepted as correct... The petitioner has violated the trust reposed by society upon parents to protect their children” – Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a regular bail application filed by a man accused of raping his 11-year-old biological daughter, under Sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, relying on DNA evidence, statements of the child, and the gravity of the offence, held that the petitioner had committed a breach of parental trust. The Court observed that the risk to the safety of the child victim, coupled with the heinousness of the crime, made the petitioner ineligible for bail, despite two years of custody and near-completion of the trial.

The case originated from an FIR dated 31 March 2023, registered at Police Station Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, wherein the petitioner was accused of digitally penetrating his 11-year-old daughter on 27 March 2023. The child had fled home and was found by a local woman, to whom she disclosed the assault and the ongoing abuse at the hands of her father.

She later told the police that when she screamed, her father gagged her. Her stepmother corroborated the story, stating that the petitioner had locked her inside her room during the assault.

The child’s date of birth was confirmed as 26 March 2012, making her 11 years and 5 days old at the time of the incident.

Key forensic evidence included the presence of human semen on a mattress, which was subjected to DNA testing. The DNA profile matched both the victim and the petitioner, thereby substantiating the child’s allegations.

Prima Facie Involvement Established – Bail Denied Due to Heinousness of Offence and Breach of Trust

The Court categorically held that the petitioner’s role in the offence is supported by scientific and testimonial evidence:

“Her statement is, prima facie, corroborated by the recovery of her DNA and the DNA of the petitioner from the mattress... the petitioner being the father of the victim was bound to protect her; however, he raped her and violated the trust reposed by the society upon the parents to protect their children.” [Para 11]

Citing Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768, and Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, the Court emphasized that in cases involving serious allegations under POCSO, factors like gravity of offence, possibility of reoffending, and threat to the victim outweigh the right to liberty.

No Unreasonable Delay in Trial – Extended Custody Alone Not a Ground for Bail

The petitioner argued that he had been incarcerated for over two years without trial completion. However, the Court noted that 18 out of 25 prosecution witnesses had already been examined, 2 were given up, 1 had died, and only 4 remained, with the case posted for 6 June 2025.

Thus, the Court held:

“It cannot be said that there is any delay in the progress of the trial.” [Para 12]

“Mere duration of custody without substantial delay or inertia in trial progress is not a valid ground for bail.” [Headnote]

The Court reinforced this with citations from Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 15 SCC 570, where it was held that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot defeat the object of criminal justice.

Protection of the Victim – Bail Denied to Prevent Risk of Further Harm

Another key consideration was the potential threat to the child victim, since she had lived with the petitioner before his arrest. The Court observed:

“The petitioner was residing with the victim, and in case of his release on bail, the safety of the victim would be endangered.” [Para 13]

In line with Dilip Singh v. State of M.P., (2021) 2 SCC 779, and Shabeen Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479, the Court prioritized victim welfare and trauma prevention.

🧾 Court's Conclusion

The Himachal Pradesh High Court found no merit in the bail application and dismissed it with a clear caveat:

“Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.” [Para 15]

“The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the case's merits.” [Para 16]

Date of decision: 05/06/2025