A Delhi Court recently rejected the bail plea of a woman accused of kidnapping her employer’s child in a bid to recover her wages [State v. Shivani]..Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal rejected the woman’s bail plea considering the seriousness of the alleged crime.“Even if she has kidnapped the child to recover her wages, it can, by no stretch of imagination, be a method for the same. There are counter claims from both the sides about whether she demanded wages or more money which shall be a matter of trial,” the bail order stated..The Court noted that the woman might be a flight risk as she had no permanent address in Delhi. Therefore, she was, prima facie stated to have no case for bail at the present stage..The woman was booked under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 364A (kidnapping or maiming a minor for begging) of the Indian Penal Code. It came on record that she worked as a domestic help in the house of the complainant and after kidnapping the child, went to Alwar, Rajasthan.From there, the woman was stated to have sent messages to the parents demanding payment of her wages and threatened them of dire consequences, including killing the child, if her demands were not met..Counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the public prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that she had no permanent address in Delhi and had committed a grave offence, which was punishable with death penalty. Further, her intention was clear from the messages she sent..It was also argued that the claims of her counsel that she was a poor person and the only bread winner for the family were wrong, as she had left her parental home in 2018 - a fact not denied by her father who was present in court.Following the arguments, the Court dismissed the application..[Read Order]
A Delhi Court recently rejected the bail plea of a woman accused of kidnapping her employer’s child in a bid to recover her wages [State v. Shivani]..Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal rejected the woman’s bail plea considering the seriousness of the alleged crime.“Even if she has kidnapped the child to recover her wages, it can, by no stretch of imagination, be a method for the same. There are counter claims from both the sides about whether she demanded wages or more money which shall be a matter of trial,” the bail order stated..The Court noted that the woman might be a flight risk as she had no permanent address in Delhi. Therefore, she was, prima facie stated to have no case for bail at the present stage..The woman was booked under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 364A (kidnapping or maiming a minor for begging) of the Indian Penal Code. It came on record that she worked as a domestic help in the house of the complainant and after kidnapping the child, went to Alwar, Rajasthan.From there, the woman was stated to have sent messages to the parents demanding payment of her wages and threatened them of dire consequences, including killing the child, if her demands were not met..Counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the public prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that she had no permanent address in Delhi and had committed a grave offence, which was punishable with death penalty. Further, her intention was clear from the messages she sent..It was also argued that the claims of her counsel that she was a poor person and the only bread winner for the family were wrong, as she had left her parental home in 2018 - a fact not denied by her father who was present in court.Following the arguments, the Court dismissed the application..[Read Order]