The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kajal vs State (NCT of Delhi) consisting of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta expounded that giving birth to a child while in custody would not only be a trauma to the mother but also create an everlasting adverse impact on the child.
Facts
This application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner u/s 439 CrPC read with Section 482 CrPC for grant of interim bail for a period of six months in a FIR u/s 363, 367, 368, 326, 307, 506, 34 and 120B IPC registered on the statement of victim who had performed marriage with another victim against the consent of her parents. However, family members of the wife of the complainant abducted the victim and his wife and after brutally beating him up, his private part was amputated with an axe and he also received stab injuries. The complainant was thrown in a drain from where he was rescued by his brother and was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre.
Contentions Made
Respondent: It was contended that pregnancy of a female under-trial prisoner itself is not a ground based on which an accused involved in a heinous offence, can be enlarged on bail, where there is a high security risk to the lives and safety of the victims. It was also contended that there was no complication in the pregnancy of the petitioner, though it was admitted that the expected date of delivery of the petitioner is 25.08.2022.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the Court is required to give due weightage to the aspects like nature and gravity of offence and the impact of such an offence committed, on the society for consideration of bail. However, it was rightly observed that pregnancy of a woman is a special circumstance which needs to be appreciated, as giving birth to a child while in custody, would not only be a trauma to the mother but also create an everlasting adverse impact on the child, whenever questioned about his birth. It was noted that:
“Every pregnant female deserves the dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India during motherhood. The Court is expected to take note of interest of a child, who is not expected to be exposed to the prisons, until and unless there is a grave danger in releasing the petitioner on bail. Even the proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC also provides that the condition of not releasing a person on bail charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall not be applicable, if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or sick or infirm subject to such conditions as may be imposed.”
Judgment
The Bench concluded that since the petitioner was a pregnant woman expecting the delivery, she deserved to be enlarged on interim bail for a period of three months from the date of release on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/MM/Duty MM. It was further directed that during the period of interim bail the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten, influence or interact with the prosecution witnesses.
Case: Kajal vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 2286/2022 & CRL.M.A. 15991/2022
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Decided on: 18th August 2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments