‘Control liquor habits’: Man accused of assaulting pregnant wife gets bail

The order added, “this observation is being made with a view to ensure that no untoward situation or inconvenience arises for the complainant in the matrimonial home during this sensitive period.” 

Justice Sanjay Vashistha heard a matrimonial dispute and granted bail to a man accused of assaulting his pregnant wife.

Physical assault on pregnant wife 

The man filed a bail plea before the high court, seeking regular bail. The case relates to an alleged incident on April 14 and 15. The petitioner is the husband of the complainant and is accused of physically assaulting her. The couple got married on May 5, 2019, and have two daughters aged five and a half years old and two years old. 

According to the case, the woman alleged that she was three months pregnant when her husband, after consuming alcohol, frequently quarrelled with her and assaulted her. She alleged that he pressured her to undergo an ultrasound to determine the sex of the foetus as he did not want another girl child,

She also alleged that during the incident he pulled her hair, hit her against the wall, assaulted her with fists and kicks, and caused injuries on her forearm with a knife/ vegetable cutter. Based on her complaint, an FIR was filed on April 20, five days after allege incident. The woman was found with 11 injuries, but they were classified as simple in nature.

Advocate Impinder Singh Dhaliwal for the husband argued that there was an unexplained delay of five days in filing the FIR despite alleging that the incident occurred earlier. It was also submitted that the injuries suffered by the wife were not serious in nature, and sought regular bail.

The State, opposing the plea, argued that the husband allegedly did not want a third female child, and repeatedly forced his wife to undergo a sex determination ultrasound with an intent of terminating if the foetus was female.

The state submitted that when the wife refused to undergo such an illegal procedure, the husband allegedly subjected her to severe physical assault and attacked her with a sharp-edged weapon, causing a total of eleven injuries.

State counsel argued that the husband acted with the intention of preventing the child from being born alive, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is argued that since the offence is grave and the husband acted brutally, he does not deserve the concession of bail.

‘Bail granted’

The court observed that the case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, and that if the allegations against the husband were proven, they were serious. Noting that he had already spent three months in custody since April 21, and the investigation was complete and trial would take a considerable time, it held that keeping him in jail would not serve any purpose.

The court granted bail to the husband, while directing him not to threaten or influence prosecution witnesses. It also clarified that the observation made in the order should not affect the trial must be considered independently based on evidence.