Not only this the husband of the victim had also uploaded
nude photographs of the victim on facebook through fake facebook ID
created by him in the name of victim and had also uploaded nude
photographs of the victim as profile picture of that facebook ID and
after taking screen shots thereof had sent photographs to the victim
and had also uploaded videos and photographs wherein victim was
nude. During investigation, 16 such screen shots have been produced
before the police which were uploaded by the husband of the victim.
16. Relationship of husband and wife is a privileged relation.
Institution of marriage inspires trust and confidence which leads to
complete surrender of spouses to each other. This relation of mutual
trust, faith and confidence creates sense of security and sometimes
even more than parents and children. Sometime spouse feels more
secured in shelter of life partner than mother’s lap. Such feeling
inspires openness between husband and wife.
17. Posting and uploading nude photographs of spouse,
particularly of wife, in public domain amounts to betray the mutual
trust and confidence which marital relations implies. It is stripping off
a woman in public by the husband himself who is not only supposed
but duly bound to protect her, it is not only serious but a heinous
crime. It’s impact on soul, mind and health of the victim is beyond
imagination. It causes suffering to her beyond comprehension,
attracting the provision of Section 498-A IPC. An act amounting to
stripping off a woman in public, in my considered view dis-entitles a
person from anticipatory bail.
18. I am of the considered view that extraordinary provision
of Section 438 Cr.P.C, conferring discretion upon the Court to direct
enlargement of a person on bail before his arrest, in the event of his
arrest, is not framed to benefit such offenders particularly a husband
who is accused of an offence amounting to stripping off his wife in
public. Therefore, considering the given facts and circumstances of
the case, nature and gravity of the accusations and impact thereof on
the soul, mind and body of a woman, affecting her mental and
physical health beyond comprehension, I do not find it fit to enlarge
petitioner Abhishek Mangla on bail, exercising the power under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, bail petition [Cr.M.P(M) No. 1808 of 2020]
preferred by him is dismissed.
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1808 to 1811 of
2020
Decided on: 27.10.2020
Cr.M.P(M) No. 1808 of 2020
Abhishek Mangla Vs State of H.P.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
These four petitions preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C
are being disposed of by this common order as common status report
filed on behalf of respondent-State is to be considered on the basis of
common facts and circumstances.
2. Petitioner Abhishek Mangla is husband of complainant,
whereas, Pat Ram Mangla, Shirli Mangla and Meenal Mangla are father,
mother and sister of Abhishek Mangla.
3. Common status report filed on behalf of respondent-State
has been taken on record, wherein contents of complaint submitted by
the victim, on the basis of which FIR No. 41/2020 dated 5.10.2020 has
been registered against the petitioners under Sections 498A, 504, 34
IPC and Sections 66(E) and 67 of the IT Act in Women Police Station,
Mandi, District Mandi, has been reproduced.
4. According to the victim, after one month of solemnization
of marriage with Abhishek Mangla, the petitioners had started
harassing her on one or other pretext particularly for insufficient
dowry. It is also case of the victim that there was some criminal case
registered against the petitioners in which they were trying to get
anticipatory bail and the father of the complainant had helped them in
engaging an Advocate at Chandigarh but after getting bail, allegations
were leveled by her father-in-law that the father of the complainant
would have shared their money from the Advocate engaged by them
and other incidents, which are not being reproduced here in detail,
have also been stated in the complaint with respect to beatings,
harassing and preventing from making calls to her parents and sisters.
It is complained that even the calls of the complainant were being
recorded by her husband. Being tired of atrocities of her in-laws,
complainant had called her father and had come to her parental house
at Mandi along-with him and at that time, after about 1½ months, her
husband had come to Mandi and apologized for his conduct and
sweared for not to repeat that whereupon complainant had agreed to
accompany him with the consent of her far believing that he will not
beat her. But immediately after reaching at home, he had again
threatened her to teach a lesson to her father and thereafter again had
started harassing and beating her and abusing her sister and parents.
5. It is also stated in the complaint that once, during night,
Abhishek Mangla had snapped her nude photographs on his mobile
and on refusal to allow that, he had expressed his anger whereupon
victim had acceded to his request and out of fear, she had not raised
any voice against him. On asking for reason to take such photographs,
the husband of the complainant, at that time, had replied that he had
done so causelessly/without any reason (‘yooh hee’). However,
thereafter her husband had uploaded her nude photographs on the
internet for sometime and had removed after some time.
6. It is further case of the complainant that in September,
2020, husband of the complainant had dictated her to ask her father to
provide scooty to him, failing which, he had threatened to post all
nude posts on internet along-with name, address and mobile number
of her father and when she requested to delete those nude
photographs from his mobile then he had slapped her. At that time
out of fear she had even urinated in her clothes and suffered fever
also. When she narrated this incident to her father-in-law and mother-
in-law, they had also justified the demand of their son and her sisterin-
law had commencted that that it would not be easy to have scooty
from the parents of the victim.
7. Not only this the husband of the victim had also uploaded
nude photographs of the victim on facebook through fake facebook ID
created by him in the name of victim and had also uploaded nude
photographs of the victim as profile picture of that facebook ID and
after taking screen shots thereof had sent photographs to the victim
and had also uploaded videos and photographs wherein victim was
nude. During investigation, 16 such screen shots have been produced
before the police which were uploaded by the husband of the victim.
8. The petitioners have approached this Court for
anticipatory bail. They have been enlarged on anticipatory bail on 9th
October, 2020 with a direction to join the investigation. As per status
report filed, they have joined the investigation and petitioner Abhishek
Mangla has also produced his mobile and sim purported to be used by
him. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are ready
to abide by any further condition imposed by Court for confirmation of
their bail and they are also in a position and read to furnish local
surety. Further that offence under Information and Technology Act (IT
Ac( is not non-bailable and for other alleged offences, petitioners
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. The offence under Sections 66(E) and 67 of the IT Act may
be bailable offence, however, offence under Section 498A IPC is a nonbailable
offence.
10. So far as the petitioners Pat Ram Mangla, Shirli Mangla
and Meenal Mangla (Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 1809, 1810 and 1811 of 2020) are concerned, considering their role as indicated in status report and as
alleged in the complaint, they are enlarged on bail subject to
furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of `50,000/- each with one local
surety each, as undertaken, in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi and also subject to the following
conditions:-
i) That the petitioners shall make themselves available
to the police or any other Investigating Agency or
Court in the present case as and when required;
ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court
or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
They shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or
influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;
iii) that they shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the
investigation/trial;
iv) that the petitioners shall not commit the offence
similar to the offence to which they are accused or
suspected;
v) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in
any manner;
vi) that the petitioners shall not jump over the bail;
vii) that they shall furnish proof of their place of ordinary
residence like certificate of Panchayat or any other
authority which may be placed where his mother,
brother or wife are residing and he shall keep on
informing about the change in address, landline
number and/or mobile number, if any, for their
availability to Police and/or during trial; and
viii) they shall not leave India without permission of the
Court.
ix) They shall not involve in commission of same and
similar offence and in such eventuality, bail in present
case shall also be liable to be cancelled.
11. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing
and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the
petitioners as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice.
12. In case the aforesaid petitioners violate any conditions
imposed upon them, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such
eventuality prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for
cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.
13. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the
directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.
HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.
14. Observations made in these petitions hereinbefore shall
not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly
confined for the disposal of these bail applications.
15. The petitioners are permitted to produce copy of order
downloaded from the High Court website and the trial Court shall not
insist for certified copy of the order, however, he may verify the order
from the High Court website or otherwise.
16. Relationship of husband and wife is a privileged relation.
Institution of marriage inspires trust and confidence which leads to
complete surrender of spouses to each other. This relation of mutual
trust, faith and confidence creates sense of security and sometimes
even more than parents and children. Sometime spouse feels more
secured in shelter of life partner than mother’s lap. Such feeling
inspires openness between husband and wife.
17. Posting and uploading nude photographs of spouse,
particularly of wife, in public domain amounts to betray the mutual
trust and confidence which marital relations implies. It is stripping off
a woman in public by the husband himself who is not only supposed
but duly bound to protect her, it is not only serious but a heinous
crime. It’s impact on soul, mind and health of the victim is beyond
imagination. It causes suffering to her beyond comprehension,
attracting the provision of Section 498-A IPC. An act amounting to
stripping off a woman in public, in my considered view dis-entitles a
person from anticipatory bail.
18. I am of the considered view that extraordinary provision
of Section 438 Cr.P.C, conferring discretion upon the Court to direct
enlargement of a person on bail before his arrest, in the event of his
arrest, is not framed to benefit such offenders particularly a husband
who is accused of an offence amounting to stripping off his wife in
public. Therefore, considering the given facts and circumstances of
the case, nature and gravity of the accusations and impact thereof on
the soul, mind and body of a woman, affecting her mental and
physical health beyond comprehension, I do not find it fit to enlarge
petitioner Abhishek Mangla on bail, exercising the power under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, bail petition [Cr.M.P(M) No. 1808 of 2020]
preferred by him is dismissed. Needless to say that he would not be
entitled to any further protection of interim bail granted vide order
dated 9.10.2020 in his favour.
19. Accordingly, Cr.M.P(M) Nos. 1809, 1810 and 1811 of 2020
are allowed and Cr.M.P(M) No. 1808 of 2020 is dismissed in aforesaid
terms.
Dasti Copy.
October 27, 2020 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
No comments:
Post a Comment