Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth and Prashant Mishra-I, JJ., granted bail to father who repeatedly raped his minor daughter, holding that there was a remote possibility of hearing of his appeal in the near future.
Background
As per the prosecution, an FIR was lodged by the estranged wife (“the mother”) of the convict against him under Sections 376-D, 313, 323, 504 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), read with Sections 3 and 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”). She alleged that her husband, i.e., the convict, had been sexually assaulting their daughter, aged about 16 years, for a long time.
When she found out, she sent her daughter to Vanashthali Vidyapeeth in Jaipur for further studies. However, the convict used to forcibly take the daughter from the school to hotels and sexually assault her with his friends. The mother further alleged that on her protest, she and her daughter were beaten and threatened by the convict.
The mother also alleged that her daughter had informed her that her father used to take her to various hotels, where he, along with his friends, used to sexually assault her, by which she became pregnant, and her father made her get an abortion. The convict would also flirt with the daughter’s friends, and on her daughter’s disapproval of the same, he threatened her life. Allegedly, the convict’s mother and second wife were aware of the entire story, but the convict’s mother would forcibly send the daughter to him for sexual favours.
During the medico-legal examination, the daughter stated that her father/the convict had been sexually assaulting her since she was in class 3 and that she was ravaged for the first time when she was 10 years old. Her father and his friends had also raped her in hotels and subjected her to an abortion in a private hospital. She told her mother about the incidents in 2015. The medico-legal report did not reveal any external or internal injuries to the person of the daughter. Her X-Ray and USG report also did not reveal any abnormalities.
The Trial Court ultimately convicted the father under Sections 313, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in 2024. Hence, the present appeal and bail application.
Analysis
After hearing the submissions and considering that there were more than 200 criminal appeals listed before the Court per day and it was not humanly possible to decide all on merit, the Court allowed the bail application, holding that there was a remote possibility of hearing his appeal in the near future. Accordingly, the convict was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
The Court further directed that, “the conviction and sentence awarded to convict shall also remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal, since he is a Government servant and his right to earn his livelihood for survival cannot be curtailed because of implication in this case.”
The Court also issued the following directions:
-
The convict shall not transfer, sell, alienate, or create any charge on the immovable property in his name, while on bail, save with leave of the Court.
-
He shall inform of the change of address, if any, within ten days, failing which the State shall be at liberty to request the cancellation of his bail.
-
As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same shall be transmitted to the Court forthwith by the Trial Court to be kept on record.
-
The convict shall deposit 50% of the fine within a period of one month from the date of his release from jail. The remaining 50% of the fine shall remain stayed until the pendency of the criminal appeal. In case the fine is not deposited within the time as specified above, the same shall be recovered in accordance with the law.
[Pravesh Singh Tomar v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 8161, decided on 12-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Akshat Sinha, Sanyukta Singh, Sushil Shukla
For the respondent: G.A., J Shubham
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
