scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Wednesday, December 08, 2021

Delhi court denies bail to domestic worker who kidnapped child to demand wages

The court said that “by no stretch of imagination” can kidnapping of a child be considered a method to recover wages

By: Express News Service | New Delhi |
November 11, 2021 3:51:52 pm
Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal rejected the bail plea of the domestic worker who is accused of having kidnapped the complainant’s child before fleeing to Rajasthan. (File)

A Delhi court rejected the bail plea of a domestic worker accused of kidnapping and threatening to kill a child in order to recover her wages from the child’s parents, saying that it cannot be a method to recover wages by any stretch of imagination.

Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal rejected the bail plea of the domestic worker who is accused of having kidnapped the complainant’s child before fleeing to Rajasthan.

The court denied bail by observing, “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. However, considering the seriousness of the offence, the fact that she may be a flight risk as having no permanent address in Delhi and also the fact that she left her parental house way back in the year 2018 as she did not want to live with her parents, she does not have a prima facie case of bail.”

The incident took place in central Delhi this year when the accused fled with the child after she made repeated demands to the child’s parents to pay her wages. The accused fled with the child to Alwar, Rajasthan and sent a series of messages demanding her wages, failing which she said she would kill the child. The woman has been booked under sections 363 (punishment for kidnapping) and 364(A) (kidnapping for ransom) of the IPC.

The lawyer for the accused prayed for bail by telling the court that she was the only breadwinner of her family and was poor. The prosecution opposed her bail stating “she has no permanent address in Delhi and she had committed a grave offence which is punishable with death penalty and her intention was clear from the messages she sent.”

The prosecutor also stated that her counsel’s claim that she is poor and the only breadwinner of the family is falsified as she had left her home and parents in 2018. The father of the accused also confirmed this when asked by the court.

 

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Delhi News, download Indian Express App.

  • Newsguard
  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
  • Newsguard
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement