Mumbai, May 14: The sessions court at Dindoshi has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 77-year-old Bengaluru resident accused of sexually assaulting his three-year-old granddaughter, observing that he may flee or tamper with prosecution evidence.
The man was booked on the complaint of his daughter-in-law at Powai police station in April 2026. She claimed that she had separated from her husband.
The woman alleged that her husband had taken the child victim on two occasions for her stay with him, during which she noticed injuries on her lips and black patches on her legs.
The woman further claimed that in March, when her daughter returned after being with her husband, she noticed that the girl was touching her private parts frequently. When she confronted the child, she allegedly revealed that her grandfather had sexually assaulted her.
Defence cites family dispute and delay in FIR
The lawyer for the grandfather, Marmik Shah, claimed that the man had been falsely implicated in the case. It was alleged that due to several issues, the informant and the applicant’s son were living separately. Divorce proceedings between them are ongoing.
“There is gross delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the medical examination of the victim. The application is filed with mala fide intention. Videos and pictures of the child victim of alleged rape would show that the child victim is happy and having a good time with them,” Shah contended.
The plea was opposed by the prosecution as well as by the lawyers representing the complainant — Shubham More, Sagar Shetty, and Ashish Venugopal.
They contended that there is an audio recording of the conversation between the victim and the mother, which is material evidence against the accused.
They further argued that the welfare and protection of the child victim is essential and that she has undergone profound trauma. “If he is released on bail, he may abuse the process of law,” they submitted.
Court cites victim’s welfare while rejecting plea
The court considered the medical report, which stated that sexual assault on the victim cannot be ruled out, though no injury marks were observed.
The court observed: “No doubt, the applicant is aged about approximately 80 years and is the grandfather of the child victim, but keeping in mind the object of protecting the child victim and considering her interest and welfare, and also keeping in mind her age, the contents of the FIR and medical report at this juncture cannot be ignored by believing the alleged defence of the applicant.”
Also Watch:
After rejection of the plea, the grandfather has now approached the High Court for anticipatory bail. Besides, the police had also arrested the father of the victim for alleged sexual assault on April 30. He was later released on bail after the court held his arrest illegal as the grounds of arrest were not provided to him.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
