The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused of physically assaulting his three-month pregnant wife and demanding she undergo an illegal foetal sex determination test, while urging him to address his alcohol addiction and carry out his domestic obligations.
In an order issued on Aug. 3, Justice Sanjay Vashishth stated that the complainant could remain at her parental residence until her delivery and physical recovery if she wished. The court explained that this measure was meant to ensure her safety and comfort during a sensitive time. Additionally, the judge directed the husband not to intimidate or contact prosecution witnesses, clarifying that the court’s preliminary observations should not influence the eventual outcome of the trial.
Background And Assault Allegations
The criminal case stems from alleged domestic violence on April 14 and 15, which led to a police complaint being registered on April 20. Married since May 5, 2019, the couple has two daughters, aged two and five and a half.
According to prosecution reports, the accused, while under the influence of alcohol, repeatedly argued with his wife and pressured her to undergo an ultrasound to check the sex of the foetus, as he was unwilling to have a third female child. When she refused to comply with the illegal demand, he allegedly launched a violent attack—punching, kicking, dragging her by her hair, slamming her against a wall, and striking her forearm with a sharp kitchen utensil. A subsequent medical assessment revealed 11 injuries, all of which were evaluated as simple in nature.
Legal Arguments And Judicial Findings
State prosecutors strongly opposed the bail application, maintaining that the accused acted with the intent of preventing the child from being born alive, an offense under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Opposing counsel argued that the severity of the assault and the gravity of the allegations justified keeping the husband in custody.
In contrast, defense attorney Impinder Singh Dhaliwal pointed to an unexplained five-day delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the initial police report. Defense counsel also argued that the injuries were not life-threatening and requested regular bail for his client.
In granting bail, Justice Vashishth noted that the case arose from a matrimonial conflict and that while the accusations were serious if proven, the investigation had concluded and the trial was expected to take considerable time. Given that the petitioner had been in custody since April 21, the court concluded that continued imprisonment served no further purpose.
