Pregnant women need bail, not jail: Himachal high court

Even when offences are grave and accusations severe, they still deserve temporary bail or suspension of sentence, extending to a year after delivery, judge Anoop Chitkara observed

Observing that every pregnant woman deserves dignity, the Himachal Pradesh high court has allowed the anticipatory bail petition of an accused booked under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

During the recent hearing, the judge observed that nutritious food in jail may ensure physical health but cannot substitute the stress that confined spaces might cause. (Representative image)

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara held that pregnant women deserve bail not jail. “What is so urgent to execute the sentence? Heavens will not fall if the incarceration is postponed. Courts must restore the due and sacrosanct freedom of women in motherhood pro tanto (to that extent). Even when offences are grave and accusations severe, they still deserve temporary bail or suspension of sentence, extending to a year after delivery,” observed Justice Chitkara.

The petitioner’s husband and mother-in-law were arrested after the recovery of 259g of heroin and 713g of tablets containing Tramadol from their house at Damtal in Kangra district on November 29, 2020.

The petitioner is accused of conspiring with her husband in the drug trade.

During the recent hearing, the court observed that nutritious food in jail may ensure physical health but cannot substitute the stress that confined spaces might cause. “Giving birth in jail can be a cause of tremendous trauma. What difference will it make to the State and society if the incarceration is postponed?” said the court.

The petitioner had filed a bail petition before the court of special judge, Kangra, which was dismissed on January 19, 2021.

The court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act implies that the accused should satisfy its twin conditions and come out clean. “The evidence collected by the investigator is legally insufficient to deny bail to the other accused in the absence of any other incriminating evidence or allegations, further mellowed down by the criminal history of her husband. Thus, the petitioner has satisfied the first condition. To meet the second, stringent conditions would suffice,” the court said.

On this ground alone, instead of limited period bail, she has satisfied the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner makes a case for release on bail during the trial, the judge held.

The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions, the court said.

The court ordered the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of ₹10,000 and surety bond of ₹25,000.