The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, observing that being an alcoholic and allegedly harassing family members cannot, by themselves, justify levelling serious allegations against him merely to teach him a lesson. The Court found material inconsistencies and improvements in the statements of the complainant and the victim, which raised doubts about the prosecution's case at the stage of bail.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a bail application filed in connection with allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. According to the prosecution, the applicant's wife had lodged a complaint against him following an alleged assault on her. During the police investigation, their daughter allegedly disclosed that her father had sexually assaulted her on two occasions and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incidents. The mother subsequently lodged an FIR against her husband.

The applicant's counsel argued that the allegations were false and fabricated to teach him a lesson amid matrimonial discord. He pointed to contradictions in the victim's statements and discrepancies between the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court noted discrepancies in the statements of the victim. It observed that the complainant's and victim's statements differed on the interval between the two alleged incidents, with accounts varying between two to three days, eight days and fifteen days.

Finding that the inconsistencies and material improvements raised doubt and suspicion about the subsequent narrative, the Court remarked that the case appeared, prima facie, to have been fabricated with the intention of teaching the applicant a lesson. It observed:

“… the case against the Applicant appears to have been fabricated with the intention of teaching him a lesson. It is seen that while it may be true that the Applicant is an alcoholic and has been harassing his family, such circumstances cannot, by themselves, justify the levelling of serious allegations against him merely to teach him a lesson.”

The Court held that such an approach would be contrary to the principles of fairness and human conscience. It observed that material improvements/contradictions in the subsequent statements of the Complainant and the victim both make the case of the prosecution doubtful at the threshold.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and clarified that the trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the prima facie observations made in the bail order.

Case Title: Ganesh Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 3156 of 2026]