Bombay High Court grants bail to man accused of raping his daughter

The court concluded that the ongoing disputes between the man and his ex-wife raised the possibility of false charges and granted bail.

In Short

• Case linked to disputes with ex-wife post-divorce
• Prosecution opposed bail citing victim's statements
• Judge questioned victim's return to father's home

The Bombay High Court granted bail to a man accused of raping his 17-year-old daughter, noting the possibility that the case arose from disputes between the man and his former wife. The man had been in jail for a year. He and his ex-wife had divorced each other by mutual consent, and after he remarried, financial disagreements allegedly surfaced between them.

The case was registered at Mumbra police station, Thane, last year. The FIR detailed one alleged incident of rape. Advocate Mohammed Zain Khan, representing the man, argued that the accusations were false and stemmed from matrimonial discord. He pointed to contradictions in the victim's statements during medical examination and before a magistrate, where she mentioned multiple incidents of rape.

Khan also referenced the "Deed of Divorce by Mutual Consent," claiming that financial disputes between the man and his ex-wife led to the FIR’s filing.

The prosecution opposed the bail, but Justice Manish Pitale highlighted discrepancies in the timeline. “If these incidents from 2021 were true, it is unlikely the victim would have come to stay with her father in 2023, after he had remarried,” Justice Pitale said.

He questioned the victim’s reasoning for returning to her father and her mother’s decision to allow it despite earlier allegations.

"The reason stated by the victim that she came to her father because she had some difference of opinion with her mother, also does not prima facie fit into the natural course of human conduct. Equally, the mother of the victim would have ensured that the victim does not join the company of her father despite being aware of forcible physical relations established by the man two years prior to the incident dated 13.10.2023," the Judge stated.

Justice Pitale noted that the man was required to support his daughters and ex-wife under the divorce agreement. Advocate Sonia Miskin, representing the ex-wife, argued that the man had failed to meet his obligations.