The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an elderly man accused by his daughter-in-law of sexual misconduct and other offences in a matrimonial FIR, citing the four-year delay in the complaint, the absence of specific dates in the FIR and the lack of any real need for custodial interrogation, while cautioning that its observations are made only for the limited purpose of bail.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to a man of about 79, a retired government servant, accused by his daughter-in-law of sexual misconduct, cruelty and criminal breach of trust in an FIR registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar, holding that there was no real need for his custodial interrogation and that the police apprehension that he was a flight risk had no cogent basis [X v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)].
Justice Girish Kathpalia passed the order on September 28, 2026. The names of the parties are withheld because the FIR includes allegations of a sexual offence by a woman against a member of her family. The allegations are untested, the applicant is presumed innocent, and the Court has expressed no view on their merits.
The case
FIR No. 158/2026 was registered on April 29, 2026 initially under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC, and offences under Sections 354, 354A and 376 of the IPC and Section 74 of the BNS were added later. The complainant, who lives in Canada, alleges that on various occasions the applicant sexually harassed her and tried to establish physical relations with her, and that in May 2022 he committed a sexual assault on her. She also alleges that her stridhan remains with her in-laws and that she was beaten at the matrimonial home on February 12, 2026.
The couple’s child, aged three, is in Canada in the custody of the complainant’s husband under an order of the Ontario Court of Justice, which has not been challenged, and the matter before that court is listed on October 27, 2026 for settlement efforts. The Court had earlier protected the applicant from arrest, and had expressed concern in earlier orders about the welfare of the child. It refused a request to adjourn the application until after the October hearing, citing its long pendency.
What the parties argued
For the applicant, it was argued that he is about 79, that the allegations were made only to pressurise his son to settle the matrimonial disputes, and that the complainant, a permanent resident of Canada, filed the case in Delhi to harass his family. It was also pointed out that he has lodged FIR No. 206/2026 against the complainant and her mother, alleging that they trespassed into his house while he was being interrogated at the police station.
The State opposed the application, submitting through the Additional Public Prosecutor that the applicant did not join the investigation despite notices, that custodial interrogation is more effective, that the investigation is at a nascent stage, and that he is a flight risk since the rest of his family is settled in Canada, with look-out circulars issued against the husband and the mother-in-law. The complainant and her counsel also opposed bail, saying her stridhan remains with the in-laws, that she cannot go to Canada for want of funds, and that other family members are evading the process of law.
The Court’s observations on matrimonial FIRs
Justice Kathpalia said that custody of a child is a matter of the child’s welfare and not of the rights of warring spouses, and that the child has a right to co-parenting through both parents. He said that the child suffers when one parent is kept away from the child, and expressed the hope that saner sense would prevail.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which held that arrests in Section 498A cases must not be automatic, and observed that, after that decision, allegations of heinous sexual misconduct are increasingly being added against a husband and male family members in matrimonial FIRs. It added that courts must not generalise. Each case must be examined on its own facts, and not all such allegations are false, just as not all are true.
Why bail was granted
On custodial interrogation, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer first said the applicant did not join the investigation despite repeated notices, but on being asked to show the notices said they had been issued only verbally, and no case diary was produced. The IO also accepted that the applicant joined the investigation in response to a notice of July 3, 2026. The Court held that the IO does not need the applicant to join the investigation, and that the only purpose stated for custodial interrogation was the recovery of stridhan, for which custody is not required. It added that recovery of stridhan is not the job of the bail court, and that no proceedings had been started by the complainant for it.
On the merits, and only for the limited purpose of bail, the Court noted that the alleged offences date to May 2022 or earlier while the FIR was lodged on April 29, 2026, that it found no convincing circumstance to explain such prolonged silence by a complainant it noted to be well educated and a resident of Canada, and that the FIR mentions no specific date for the alleged offences. It also noted family photographs annexed to the application that show the applicant, the complainant and the child as a happy family. It added a cautious rider that these aspects were observed only for anticipatory bail and that the trial court will take its final view on the evidence.
Flight risk and the order
The Court held that the applicant cannot be deprived of liberty merely because the rest of his family is settled in Canada, and that the flight-risk apprehension was without cogent basis. It said the fact that his wife left the country after allegedly assaulting the complainant, before the FIR was registered, cannot be a ground to penalise an applicant aged about 80.
The application was allowed. If arrested, the applicant is to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the IO or SHO concerned.
Why it matters
The order shows the Court testing, in a matrimonial FIR with sexual allegations, whether custody is really needed, and separating a demand to recover stridhan from a case for custodial interrogation. It also records the Court’s caution that such allegations should be neither presumed false nor presumed true.
The observations on delay, specificity and the photographs were made only for anticipatory bail and are not findings on whether the allegations are true. The investigation and any trial will proceed, and the complainant’s stridhan claims and the child’s custody proceedings in Canada are separate matters.
Case Title: X v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Bail Appln. 2318/2026] (names withheld)
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Ajit Sharma, Ashutosh Senger, Sukrti Gupta and Kanchan Singh appeared for the applicant, Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali, with IO SI Krishan Pal Singh, appeared for the State, and Advocates Varun Mehlawat and R.S. Juneja appeared for the complainant.