The seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the need to protect the victim and her mother were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 01.08.2009 for the alleged offences under Section 376 IPC, Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, 1988 and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, in Crime No.457 of 2009 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The victim girl, aged about 15 years, was alleged to have subjected to continuous sexual assault for more than three years by none else than her own father. The victim as well as her mother were alleged to be the silent sufferers due to threat, fear and shame, and at last the Child Welfare Committee, Chennai, came to the rescue of the pathetic victim of inhuman and barbaric sexual assault by her own protector. Now a case came to be registered against the petitioner/accused by the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 376 IPC, Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, 1988 and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. It is contended that the complaint was preferred by his wife with false allegations. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been arrested on 01.08.2009 and investigation is almost over and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of the released of the petitioner on bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged commission of heinous crime of rape on his own daughter. It is submitted that the complaint was preferred by none else than the wife of the petitioner with the help and assistance of the Child Welfare Committee, Chennai. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in continuous commission of the offence of sexual assault on the victim ; the release of the petitioner would definitely hamper the further investigation and the petitioner is also likely to tamper the evidence by threatening the victim and the complainant/his wife.

5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.

6. The petitioner, who is none else than the father of the victim girl, has been accused of shocking and heinous crime of raping his own daughter. The sanctity of father and daughter relationship got stained due to the lustful acts of the petitioner causing indelible scar, not only physically but also emotionally, on the victim. The custodian of the trust has betrayed the trust reposed on him.

That our heads bow in shame when it is learnt that a girl (child) has been raped (sexually abused) by a close relative of her own. She becomes the victim of her own trust on the relative (savior).

The above lines are extracted from the statement of objects and reasons to the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1992 and the said bill was mooted in response to the unprecedented rise in rape incidents on girl children despite the law.

7. The pervert and degrading act of the petitioner has resulted in unbearable mental torture and agony, not only to the victim but also to the victims mother and the other close relatives. It is seen that the victim/daughter and wife of the petitioner are undergoing mental and physical torture continuously for a period of three years as the petitioner alleged to have been indulging in the inhuman and barbaric act of molesting his own daughter, the victim in this case, and ultimately the Child Welfare Committee, Chennai, had come to the rescue of the victim by assisting the mother of the victim/wife of the petitioner, to prefer the complaint against the petitioner. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that even the Child Welfare Committee, Chennai, sent a separate complaint to the respondent police.

8. This Court is o