When Justice Takes Pause: The Shifting Landscape of Bail for Women, the Pregnant, and the Infirm Under India’s Criminal Laws

 Introduction: Beyond the General Rule

In most cases, bail is a contested battlefield. An accused charged with a serious offence—especially one punishable with death or life imprisonment—faces a formidable obstacle: the presumption against bail. Yet the Indian legal system has always harbored an exception to this rule. It acknowledges that certain categories of offenders present unique circumstances that justice must accommodate. This article examines how courts navigate the intersection of criminal procedure, constitutional protections, and human dignity when women, pregnant individuals, and the medically infirm come before them seeking release on bail.

Print Page

When contractual employee is not entitled to get maternity leave?

The Petitioner was appointed   as a contractual employee
and the terms and conditions of her  appointment  were governed
by  the contract which she had signed on 2nd April, 2013. As  per
the said contract, she was eligible for  8 days  casual leave and 10
days of medical  leave. The Petitioner  preferred an application for
leave on 8th January, 2014 after  absenting  herself from duty from
30th  December,  2013 and  sought  medical  leave  for    period   of

three months as per   doctor's  advice. As a contractual employee
she was not entitled for medical leave of three months, which she
applied for. At the  relevant  time in her application she did not
claim  the said  leave  as maternity benefit on account of illness
arising out of  pregnancy. Her claim was for medical  leave which
she   was     not     entitled   as   per   terms     and   conditions   of     the
contract. In view of  her absenteeism  from 30th December, 2013
the  employer issued an order of termination with effect from date
of her absence  i.e. 30th December, 2013. The Petitioner  herself
has placed before us the documents  she  has sought under  the
Right     to   Information   Act,     pertaining     to   the   notings   of   the
department. Perusal of the note clearly reveal  that the Petitioner
had  absented herself  from duty  from 30th December, 2013 and
had sought medical leave   from 1st  January, 2014 to   7th  April,
2014 and since  she was working on contractual basis she was not
entitled for  three months maternity benefit. The said application
came to be rejected  with a   remark from Director that since the
Petitioner was   working on contractual basis, she is not entitled
for   leave of three   months and therefore, in absence   of   such
leave to her credit her absenteeism from 30th  November, 2013

without  availability  of leave period  necessitated  the department
to  terminate  the services of the Petitioner. It is further noted that
the  circular  which the Petitioner has referred to, was issued on
20th March, 2015 by which the  benefits  of the maternity  leave
were extended to the contractual   employees working   with the
Respondent­department,   however,     the   said   circular   does   not
operate   retrospectively and till the time of issuance of the said
circular the contractual employees were entitled   for a limited
casual leave and medical   leave during the period of   contract
which did not include the   maternity leave.   This   came to be
extended   to the contractual employees of the department   only
with   effect   from   20th  March,   2015.     The   Petitioner     cannot
therefore     claim     benefit of the said circular. The Petitioner
thereafter made various  representations  and sought extension of
benefit of the said Government Resolution  retrospectively  to her
case, however,  the same was turned down.
It is not  in  dispute that the law relating to maternity benefit
has been enacted to  achieve the object of securing  social  justice
to the women workers. However, it  has  also to be seen that when
a law operates  it has to   strike a balance  between the  individual

right and need of the orderly society. The Petitioner's appointment
was governed   by the terms  and conditions of the contract and
the same  was binding upon her. By virtue of the contract she was
not entitled for  maternity benefit  and  she was only  entitled for
medical leave for limited period. She absented  herself  and  after
one week submitted her leave application  with medical  certificate
and prayed for grant of leave for   three months   when at the
relevant time she was in the  very early stage of pregnancy. The
policy contained in the social legislation intends  to grant  benefit
to women  workers to  have a safe  pregnancy  and to  develop  a
bond with the child and nurture   the child   immediately   after
delivery,     expects   the   benefit     to   be   conferred   on   the   eve   of
delivery  of a child and therefore, it has  bifurcated  the period into
two terms namely   first   term, preceding the   delivery and the
second  term  post­delivery . However,  the said  benefit  is not
available  on the eve of pregnancy and the woman  is  not entitled
to claim the said benefit   since the time  when a woman conceives
and   during   her     entire     gestational     period.   If   the   maternity
benefit is to be conferred in  this manner, it would rather defeat
the whole purpose, since the employee  will  also have to look at it

from the angle of  running   the administration  and the woman
employees  may not claim such privilege  for  such  entire period
of   pregnancy,   but   necessarily     have   to   regulate   themselves   in
accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Maternity   Act.     In   any
contingency, the Petitioner   was not entitled for  extension of  the
benefits  of maternity leave in terms of her  order of appointment
and   she  is   not   entitled   to   claim    benefit     of   the   Government
Circular  dated 20th March, 2015, when her services were already
terminated with effect from 30th December, 2013. 
In view of the aforesaid  observations,  we are not  inclined
to  grant  the relief  as prayed by the Petitioner namely reinstating
the   Petitioner   till   completion   of   the   contractual   period   of
employment.
IN  THE HIGH  COURT OF JUDICATURE  AT BOMBAY 
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
 WRIT PETITION NO.2402 OF 2016
Laxmi  Subhash  Yadav
V/s.
 Office  of Directorate
Through  Water and Sanitation
Support  Organization (WSSO)
Water Supply and Sanitation 
Department 
  CORAM :  S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND
                SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
  
                           Dated : 13th October 2017.

Print Page

Wife threatening husband to commit suicide when she was pregnant whether amounts to mental cruelty?

Thus, on examining the evidence adduced in this case by the husband
supported by the complaint exhibit PW-1/A filed by him and the statement
exhibit PW-4/A made by the wife during inquiry of the said complaint
proves the act of the wife to commit suicide by consuming acid amounts to
causing mental cruelty to the husband of such magnitude that he may
consider it to be injurious to live with her.
32. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment
granting decree of divorce in favour of the husband under Section 13(1)(ia)
of the Hindu Marriage Act.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Dated: September 06, 2016
 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 15/2015
GEETA PANDEY 
v
SHEKHAR PANDEY 
CORAM:
 MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
 MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
Citation:AIR 2017 Delhi 70

Print Page

When court can take lenient view while imposing punishment under PCPNDT Act?

Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form F prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under the PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Section 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filling up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultrasonography on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Section 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her.

Equivalent Citation: 2009CriLJ721, 2008GLH(3)644, (2009)1GLR64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

Criminal Reference Nos. 3 and 4 of 2008

Decided On: 30.09.2008

Appellants: Suo Motu
Vs.
Respondent: State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.S. Shah, D.H. Waghela and Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, JJ.

Print Page