Psychological illness of wife does not give husband and family members the right to treat her like a slave: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court recently denied bail to a man accused of torturing his wife while noting that even if allegations of her having a psychological illness is true, it would not give the petitioner and his family members the handle to treat her like slave bereft of any mercy and human compassion (Dipak Bhutia v. State of Orissa). .The order was pronounced by Justice SK Panigrahi on bail application moved by a man accused of committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A (cruelty to married woman), 294 (obscene acts), 323 (hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 34 (act done by several persons with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The petitioner, his mother and sister were accused of torturing the petitioner’s wife over dowry demands. In this regard, the petitioner's wife alleged that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law assaulted her with sharp wood and put poisonous spores in her private parts. Her husband was accused of having doused her with kerosense and set her on fire..Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dharanidhar Nayak submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated and the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. He argued that the allegations set out in the FIR were omnibus in nature and that there was absolutely no allegation of any specific overt act against the petitioner..It was also contended that the petitioner's wife was psychiatric patient, which was acknowledged by a villageman when the couple's problems were earlier settled by the village gentry. In this regard, the Court was told that the dispute had been settled with a condition that the petitioner's wife would go seek treatment from a doctor..The High Court, however, opined that the offences under the IPC, were prima facie made out in this case, although the allegations had to be further tested in a trial. In this regard, the Court also referred to a plethora of cases that defined cruelty. .Pertinently, the Court added that even if the complainant was suffering from a psychological illness, it would not give her husband or in-laws the right to ill-treat her, the Judge said.."The length of detention of the petitioner is not a ground for release him on bail in this kind of offence which shakes the social fabrics. Even the allegation of psychological illness of the complainant-victim does not give the petitioner and his family members the handle to treat her like slave bereft of any mercy and human compassion. Therefore, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail", reads the order..The Court proceeded to hold, ."A perusal of the FIR and charge sheet filed in the present case shows that there are very specific allegations against each of the family members of the petitioner who are arrayed as accused. It is not as if the allegations are casual and sweeping against all the accused generally.".While rejecting the bail plea, the Court, however, clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to raise all his points at the time of framing the charge before the the trial court hearing the matter. .Along with Senior Advocate Nayak, Advocates SK Das, BK Das, B Mishra and J Mitra appeared for the petitioner. Additional Standing Counsel Karunakar Nayak appeared for the State. Advocates Rajalaxmi Biswal and P Jena appeared for the informant in the case. .[Read Order]