The Dindoshi sessions court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea on 15th May of a 77-year-old Bengaluru resident accused of sexually assaulting his three-year-old granddaughter.

The court said the accused may flee or tamper with evidence, and placed the welfare of the child victim above other considerations.

The court was hearing a plea filed by the man, who was booked at Powai police station in April 2026 based on a complaint from his daughter-in-law. The woman said she had separated from her husband.

According to the complaint, the woman’s husband had allegedly taken the child on two occasions for a stay with him. After these visits, the mother allegedly noticed injuries on the child’s lips and patches on her legs. In March, when the daughter returned from her father’s place, the mother allegedly saw the girl touching her private parts repeatedly. When asked, the child said her grandfather had allegedly sexually assaulted her.

The grandfather’s lawyer, Marmik Shah, said the man had been implicated in the case. Shah said the informant and the applicant’s son were living apart due to issues.

Divorce proceedings between them are ongoing. Shah pointed to a delay in filing the FIR and in conducting the medical examination of the child. He said the application was filed with a motive, and that videos and pictures of the child allegedly showed her having time with the family.

Lawyers for the complainant Shubham More, Sagar Shetty, and Ashish Venugopal – opposed the plea. They said an audio recording of the conversation between the child and the mother exists and serves as evidence against the accused. They said the child has allegedly undergone trauma, and that releasing the man on bail would let him abuse the process of law.

The court examined the medical report, which stated that sexual assault on the child could not be ruled out, though no injury marks were seen. The court noted the man’s age nearly 80 years and that he is the child’s grandfather.

However, it said: “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 defence of the applicant.”