The Kerala High Court has dismissed a second bail application filed by a 50-year-old man accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting his 17-year-old daughter, holding that parents cannot legally settle or compromise criminal cases involving the sexual abuse of a minor.
State Duty Overrides Parental Compromise
Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the order on August 3, stating that out-of-court settlements executed by parents with the intent of halting criminal prosecution carry no legal weight. The court affirmed that such private agreements cannot supersede the state’s duty to prosecute offences committed against children, noting that sexual assault charges involving minors are non-compoundable under the law.
Exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the bench stressed that courts are duty-bound to protect the rights of minor victims even when their parents fail to do so. Commenting on the survivor’s mother, who had filed the original complaint before attempting to settle the case and consent to bail, the court observed that the situation reflected a scenario where the protective barrier itself consumed the crop.
Details Of Allegations And Legal Proceedings
The prosecution case alleges that the accused sexually assaulted his minor daughter on multiple occasions over a three-month period. Police subsequently charged him under several provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was taken into custody, remanded, and has remained in judicial custody following the rejection of his initial bail plea.
In his second regular bail petition before the High Court, the accused maintained his innocence, claiming false implication and arguing that no material evidence linked him to the alleged offenses. Defense counsel Jerry Mathew submitted that the matter had been resolved with the survivor’s mother, who had submitted an affidavit expressing no objection to the petitioner’s release on bail.
Arguments And Judicial Findings
The Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail request, describing the acts as intentional, premeditated crimes. Pointing to the survivor’s statement detailing the assaults, the prosecution argued that the gravity of the allegations justified continued detention.
In its final determination, the High Court noted that the mother’s affidavit did not refute the occurrence of the abuse, but only asserted a subsequent compromise. Reaffirming that legal protections for child victims cannot be waived by parental consent, the court rejected the settlement and turned down the bail plea.
