A Child’s right to healthy development should not be violated

Overview

• Delhi Court on 31st March, 2021 granted a bail to a woman (suman), who was accused of causing abortion of a three month old fetus and dowry death. She was granted the bail on account of her being lodged in Tihar Jail with a 21 month old child in view of her judicial custody.

Why was she in jail?

• A complaint was filed by the father of a deceased lady, the deceased was married to suman’s brother in law.
• According to the complaint filed by the deceased father it was alleged that the husband and in laws of the deceased including suman has repeatedly subjected her to demands of dowry and did not provide her with proper food and other resources.
• It was also alleged that suman forcefully gave the deceased a medicine and made her consume it which resulted in the abortion of her three months old foetus.
• The FIR was registered under Sec.489A, 304B and 34 of IPC under which Suman Kumari was in judicial custody since 09 December, 2020.

Why was she granted a bail?

• In the case of, State V. Suman Kumari, Bail matter no. 1132/21; the bail was sought for the woman on the ground of enabling the child to come out jail environment.
• The court in the case was inclined to view the ground for bail with greater appreciation and empathy which shines upon the forgotten victims of incarceration or the children of imprisoned parents.
• The court observed that the bail is denied for various reason but when a bail is defined to person especially a woman it generally results in a de facto detention of the toddler or infant. Being neither the subject of the trial nor required to be in detention for any reason such child still languish in jails for terms co –terminus with the period of detention of their mother.
• The court also paid attention to section 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 as well as the Sec. 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and pose itself, “Whether for reason alone of not conforming to the above descriptions as a CCL or CNCP, the child can be denied the protection of the principles governing the child rights?
• While, answering the court observed that, the answer is an unequivocal negation of such a proposition. Being only the son of the accused and yet suffering the de facto detention, the child must not suffer rigorous anymore stringent than the chiold who would qualify as a CCL or a CNCP, yet the child finds himself incarcerated for the alleged actions of his mother.
• Further, the court also observed that such a fate will have adverse influence on the child’s mental, physical and social growth and it would be a violation of his right to healthy development as an individual.
• Therefore, the bail was granted to Suman on furnishing of a bond of rupees 30,000.

What do you think about the court’s observation? Was it right to grant bail or not?

Share your views with us in the comment section