Help required on false molestation case

@Shailesh 

If you don't have anything constructive to say kindly refrain from making such statements. 

Ok David Copperfield. By the way, is the story really of your friend  or is it..... u know ?????

Likewise, many say that this issue is of their friend, to avoid embarrassment that the issue concerns them only. I am not saying anything about you, just saying what is it in general. It maybe true that you are not even married. 

Dear

If the fir has been registered, then u can apply to the concerned High Court for stay of arrest of your father and if you do not get the stay arrest relief from High Court, you can get your father surrendered at the concerned lower court and apply for bail. Any further query in detail plz call on number.

Regards

Bhuwan raj, Adv

Cell: 09839268489

If the complaint /FIR has been lodged, then he has to file anticipatory bail application before A.S.J.  If it is not granted he can approacch for High Court for anticipatory bail.  If he will not get there also, then when police arrests him, they produce him before magistrate within 24 hours and there he has to file regular bail application.  Once charges are framed, he has to contest the case on merits.  If his fierce contest for visitation rights against his divorced wife has brought him to such messy situation, then he should be ready with the visitation case file to provehis innocence in A.B. and regular bail hearings.

The alleged victim is said to be the age of 11 years.  Hence, IPC 354 is not applicable.  The described offence comes within the ambit of Section 7 and 8 of "The protection of children from s*xual offences Act, 2012".  The punishment prescribed in Section 8 is not less than 3 years upto 7 years.  As per second scheduel of Cr.P.C., it is cognizable and non-bailable offence and hence anticipatory bail / bail, whatever may be the case, required to be taken from the Magistrate/ASJ/High Court.

I do agree with above views but also your ex wife can file under sec 354 also see this appeal being heard by supreme court comprising of three judges 

In landmark case State of Punjab vs. Major Singh a three judge SC bench decided, injury to v**gina of a female child of seven and half months can hold accused guilty of outraging modesty under Section 354.

The judge Sarkar, C.J interpreted that an act done with the intention or knowledge that it was likely to outrage the woman's modesty be considered along with female’s reaction. Females of all age do not possess modesty, which can be outraged and dismissed the appeal.

The second judge Mudholkar, quoted ‘modesty’ as not referring to a particular woman but to the accepted notions of womanly behaviour and society. Whether female has capacity to understand or not is immaterial, allowed the appeal and held conviction under Section 354. As per the third judge Bacbawat, J. the expression "woman" denotes a female human being of any age. The culpable intention to outrage the modesty being the bottom line of the matter and agreed with the order of Mudholkar.