The Delhi High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually abusing his wife. [Nitin Kumar Tomar vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi].Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted the troubling reality of marriages being distorted into a vessel for unchecked dominance and entitlement.."Embedded within this warped perception is a dangerous belief that the marital bond grants unchecked authority to the husband, transforming his wife into a mere object to be wielded at will. The portrayal of the victim as a commodity reflects a deeply entrenched societal mindset that views women as objects to be controlled, exploited, and disposed of at will," the Court said..The Court was hearing an application by a man seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered against him under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relative), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The complaint registered by the man's wife alleged severe physical, emotional and sexual abuse. She detailed instances of coercion, violence, and exploitation by her husband including demands for dowry, forced sexual acts and threats of public shaming..The counsel for the accused argued that the complainant had stayed in her matrimonial home for a very short duration with the accused and was falsely implicating him in the case. He also argued that it was the complainant who did not wish to reside with the accused and was therefore, concocting a false story.Further, he argued that the complainant had filed several cases against the accused only to harass him and that he had never demanded any money from the complainant or her parents. Accordingly, he sought anticipatory bail..Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Satish Kumar, on the other hand, argued that the allegations against the applicant were serious. He underlined that there were specific allegations that the complainant was tortured by the accused and his family for not meeting dowry demands. He further highlighted that the accused used to beat the complainant, had burnt her hands and had made objectionable videos of her. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the bail application. .The Court observed that in the case of Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, the Supreme Court had elucidated the factors to be considered when deciding the grant of anticipatory bail - the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the nature of the offence and the severity of the potential punishment.The apex court had also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, the same by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail..The Court stated that in most cases, a woman's unemployment becomes her handicap in raising her voice against atrocities for the fear of being ousted from her matrimonial home.However, it noted that in many cases before it, the fact that a woman is earning and employed becomes her handicap too on the premise that she is independent and not inclined towards living with her husband."There is no dearth of cases placed before this Court highlighting another disturbing trend where the factum of a woman earning and employed becomes her handicap too, on the premise that since being a woman, she is earning and independent, she is not herself inclined to live with the husband and the in-laws, conveniently trying to put under wraps the reason for her to raise her voice against physical, mental, sexual and economic abuse by the husband," the Court said..Referring to the complainant's detailed account and supporting medical records, the Court noted a pattern of abuse and exploitation."A perusal of record clearly reveals a pattern of abuse and exploitation perpetrated by the applicant against his wife, demonstrating a blatant disregard for her well-being and autonomy. It is shocking that as a married earning woman, even to pay fee to the doctor and to buy medicines, she had to ask the accused/husband who told her that her father had not given enough money to take her to a doctor or to buy medicines for her," the Court noted.Since the allegations were specifically narrated with time, place and the manner of incidents, the Court determined that the argument of the applicant that he was falsely implicated was of no material consequence at the stage.Accordingly, the Court took the opinion that the accused should be dealt with with a stern hand. It further underlined that his custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of recovering any inappropriate photographs, conversations, audios or videos as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail..The applicant was represented by advocate CM Grover.APP Satish Kumar was assisted by advocates RN Dubey and Tarun Garg..[Read Judgment]
The Delhi High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually abusing his wife. [Nitin Kumar Tomar vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi].Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted the troubling reality of marriages being distorted into a vessel for unchecked dominance and entitlement.."Embedded within this warped perception is a dangerous belief that the marital bond grants unchecked authority to the husband, transforming his wife into a mere object to be wielded at will. The portrayal of the victim as a commodity reflects a deeply entrenched societal mindset that views women as objects to be controlled, exploited, and disposed of at will," the Court said..The Court was hearing an application by a man seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered against him under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relative), 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The complaint registered by the man's wife alleged severe physical, emotional and sexual abuse. She detailed instances of coercion, violence, and exploitation by her husband including demands for dowry, forced sexual acts and threats of public shaming..The counsel for the accused argued that the complainant had stayed in her matrimonial home for a very short duration with the accused and was falsely implicating him in the case. He also argued that it was the complainant who did not wish to reside with the accused and was therefore, concocting a false story.Further, he argued that the complainant had filed several cases against the accused only to harass him and that he had never demanded any money from the complainant or her parents. Accordingly, he sought anticipatory bail..Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Satish Kumar, on the other hand, argued that the allegations against the applicant were serious. He underlined that there were specific allegations that the complainant was tortured by the accused and his family for not meeting dowry demands. He further highlighted that the accused used to beat the complainant, had burnt her hands and had made objectionable videos of her. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the bail application. .The Court observed that in the case of Sumitha Pradeep v Arun Kumar CK, the Supreme Court had elucidated the factors to be considered when deciding the grant of anticipatory bail - the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the nature of the offence and the severity of the potential punishment.The apex court had also held that even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, the same by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail..The Court stated that in most cases, a woman's unemployment becomes her handicap in raising her voice against atrocities for the fear of being ousted from her matrimonial home.However, it noted that in many cases before it, the fact that a woman is earning and employed becomes her handicap too on the premise that she is independent and not inclined towards living with her husband."There is no dearth of cases placed before this Court highlighting another disturbing trend where the factum of a woman earning and employed becomes her handicap too, on the premise that since being a woman, she is earning and independent, she is not herself inclined to live with the husband and the in-laws, conveniently trying to put under wraps the reason for her to raise her voice against physical, mental, sexual and economic abuse by the husband," the Court said..Referring to the complainant's detailed account and supporting medical records, the Court noted a pattern of abuse and exploitation."A perusal of record clearly reveals a pattern of abuse and exploitation perpetrated by the applicant against his wife, demonstrating a blatant disregard for her well-being and autonomy. It is shocking that as a married earning woman, even to pay fee to the doctor and to buy medicines, she had to ask the accused/husband who told her that her father had not given enough money to take her to a doctor or to buy medicines for her," the Court noted.Since the allegations were specifically narrated with time, place and the manner of incidents, the Court determined that the argument of the applicant that he was falsely implicated was of no material consequence at the stage.Accordingly, the Court took the opinion that the accused should be dealt with with a stern hand. It further underlined that his custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of recovering any inappropriate photographs, conversations, audios or videos as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, the Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail..The applicant was represented by advocate CM Grover.APP Satish Kumar was assisted by advocates RN Dubey and Tarun Garg..[Read Judgment]
