Court rejects bail plea of woman accused of abetting torture of 2-year-old child

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a woman accused of aiding the abuse of her two-year-old child by her “paramour”. The bench stated that her role as a mother made the allegations even more serious. “The role of a mother is of care and nurturing the child and any deviation from this standard especially in a manner that harms one’s own child, invites strict action under the law,” the court observed.

Justice Sumeet Goel asserted serious allegations had been levelled against the woman in the FIR. Her alleged actions and conduct, particularly as the victimised child’s mother were deeply concerning and had brought shame, while casting a negative impact on the society as a whole. “Such actions, if proven true, are not only a violation of her duties as a mother, but also reflect a disregard for the legal and moral responsibilities inherent in the mother-child relationship,” the court observed.

Going into the background of the matter, Justice Goel observed the FIR in the matter was lodged on her husband’s complainant alleging that the petitioner-wife had developed illicit relationship. He alleged that the paramour in two disturbing images on the woman’s mobile phone appeared to be mistreating and abusing the young child, leaving him in a state of shock as a father.

Justice Goel asserted: “The alleged criminal act attributed to the petitioner has a tendency to severely impact the fabric of society at large. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at ensuring personal liberty of an individual. However, while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to strike a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest.”

Justice Goel added the court was required to also consider the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the impact on the society and the need for fair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights of the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation.

The court added it did not find evidence to suggest that a prima facie case was not made against the petitioner. Given the gravity of the allegations and the specific role attributed to the petitioner, Justice Goel concluded that she did not deserve anticipatory bail. It also rejected the petitioner’s claim of being falsely implicated, stating that this argument was misplaced, considering the severity of the charges.

Justice Goel added the court was of the considered opinion that the offence of such magnitude was required to be properly investigated and the truth brought on record, given the severity of the allegations and the nature of the conduct attributed to the petitioner.