Back
Not Required For Recovery: Grants Bail To 80-Year-Old
In a significant ruling on , the held that is not a prerequisite for the recovery of () in matrimonial disputes. Justice Girish Kathpalia granted to an 80-year-old retired government servant, Harcharan Singh Bhalla, who was accused of sexual offences by his daughter-in-law. The court found the investigating officer's claim that the accused had failed to join the investigation unsubstantiated, noting that the notices were only issued verbally and no was produced.
Verbal Notices Fail to Inspire Confidence
The FIR, initially registered under Sections 498A and 406
, later included charges under Sections 354, 354A, and 376
, along with
. The complainant alleged that her father-in-law had sexually harassed her on multiple occasions and forcibly established physical relations with her in
. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation despite being protected from arrest. However, when the court asked the investigating officer to produce the notices, he admitted they were issued only verbally.
"Such an exercise on the part of investigator fails to inspire confidence, to say the least,"
the court observed, also noting the absence of any
entries.
Recovery Not a Ground for
The prosecution had cited the recovery of the complainant's
as the primary need for
. Rejecting this argument, Justice Kathpalia stated,
"I find no hesitation to hold that the IO does not need the accused/applicant to join the investigation. As regards the issue of
also, the only purpose mentioned is the recovery of
. But for that,
is certainly not a requisite."
The court further clarified that the
cannot order recovery of
; the complainant must pursue appropriate .
Delay and Lack of Specific Dates Cast Doubt
The court noted that the alleged sexual offences occurred in
or earlier, while the FIR was lodged on
—a delay of nearly four years.
"I find no convincing circumstances which can justify such prolonged silence of such victim of such offences,"
the court remarked. It also highlighted that no specific dates were mentioned in the FIR. Family photographs submitted by the accused, depicting the complainant, the child, and the accused as a happy family, were considered for the limited purpose of the bail application, though the court cautioned that the trial court would take a final view based on evidence.
Child's Welfare Not a Reason to Deny Bail
The case also involved a custody dispute over the couple's three-year-old child, who was with the husband in Canada under an order of the
. The court expressed concern for the child's welfare but declined to keep the bail application pending on that ground, especially since the complainant had not challenged the Canadian custody order.
"Custody of child is a matter of welfare of the child and not a matter of rights of the warring spouses,"
Justice Kathpalia observed, stressing the child's right to
.
Not All Sexual Allegations Are False: A Balanced Approach
Referring to the 's judgment in
, which cautioned against automatic arrests in matrimonial cases, the court warned against generalizing that all allegations of sexual misconduct are false.
"Not all cases alleging sexual misconduct in
are false and not all cases so alleging are true,"
the court said, emphasizing the need for case-by-case examination. While noting that the complainant is a double graduate and a Canadian resident, the court clarified that these observations were only for the bail stage.
Decision
Rejecting the prosecution's argument—based solely on the fact that other family members are settled in Canada—the court granted . Justice Kathpalia directed that in the event of arrest, the accused be released on furnishing a of Rs 25,000 with one of the like amount. The accompanying application was also disposed of.
