No bail for man who forced wife to agree to partner swapping
New Delhi:
Delhi High Court
on Monday dismissed the bail plea of a man who was accused of forcing his wife into partner swapping. It stated that the allegations levelled by a woman against her husband were not the "stereotyped matrimonial dispute" ones.
The court also took a grim view of the wife's complaint that her husband didn't stop her sexual harassment by the brother-in-law and his friends. It said that the incarcerated didn't deserve to come out of jail as he might threaten his wife.
"She alleged in the FIR itself that her brother-in-law used to sexually harass her by touching her in an inappropriate manner and outraged her modesty, but when she complained to her husband, the accused/applicant, he told her to ignore all that humiliation," Justice Girish Kathpalia observed.
The woman also alleged that her husband used to hurt her hands with a blade and make her do kitchen work with wounded hands. The court recorded in the order that the husband "started compelling her to agree to wife swapping and for that purpose, he took her to a hotel where his friends molested her, so she ran away; and that the accused/applicant created her fake Insta ID and started sending her pictures on social media, soliciting people to make sexual relations with her for money.
"
Rejecting relief to the accused, Nikund Kumar, the court said that apart from these serious allegations, there were also allegations of rape and gang rape in the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the survivor.
The accused claimed he was innocent and was falsely implicated, arguing that the allegations against him were basically arising out of a matrimonial dispute and he deserved to be released on bail.
The high court, however, highlighted that earlier when he was granted anticipatory bail, he contacted his wife and exchanged text chats under a fictitious name through a new SIM card. He also admitted before the court that he tried to contact her anonymously.
On the complaint of the wife, police initially booked Kumar for offences under sections relating to dowry harassment. Offences of rape and molestation were added later.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
No coercive against RCB, DNA till June 12: HC
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday restrained officials from taking any coercive action against RCB and event partner DNA Entertainment Pvt Ltd till June 12, in the stampede incident near M Chinnaswamy Stadium that killed 11 people. The court adjourned the hearing on petitions filed by Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and DNA Entertainment Pvt Ltd to June 12. In the interim, no coercive action should be taken against the officials of the concerned, it said. RCB and DNA had moved the court challenging the FIR registered against them in connection with the June 4 stampede that occurred during a celebratory event to mark RCB's maiden IPL triumph a day earlier. Justice S R Krishna Kumar posted the matter for hearing on June 12. 'There is a gentleman's understanding -- don't do anything till we take up the matter,' the judge told the state government, warning against unnecessary arrest. The court also noted that the petition involving Nikhil Sosale, Head of Marketing at RCB and already under arrest, would be taken up separately at 10.30 am on Tuesday (June 10).
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
HC drops drug trafficking case against actor's son over unfair merging of charges
Mumbai: Calling it "preposterous", Bombay high court on Monday dismissed a drug trafficking case registered in 2021 against Dhruv Tahil, son of actor Dalip Tahil . The court held the law prohibits a merging of several minor aberrations over 18 months into one charge, a move that led to Tahil "being charged with an offence of a higher magnitude". Holding the Bandra Anti-Narcotic Cell's action as impermissible after analysing sections 218 and 219 of the erstwhile CrPC, the HC said: "Prosecution cannot be permitted to decipher and follow its own procedure for levying of charge of such a serious nature which is impermissible under the provisions of (law)." Pointing out that Tahil was not even arrested in possession of contraband, Justice Milind Jadhav said: "Prima facie when section 218 (of CrPC) is read, such charge by prosecution on the face of record appears to be preposterous… The procedural law does not permit the prosecution to assimilate more than three charges into a singular charge over a period of 18 months to be tried together and invoke a singular precipitative action. " The ANC, Bandra unit, in May 2021 arrested Tahil, then aged 30, after a co-accused, Muzammil Shaikh, held in Bandra (E) with 35 gm of mephedrone (MD), alleged that he had "in the past" supplied to him and various others. Police said it recovered WhatsApp messages between Jul 2019 and Jan 2021, which allegedly pertained to purchase of 1 gm or 2 gm of MD on various occasions, totalling 44 gm from Shaikh worth roughly Rs 25,000, to justify its invocation of serious charges of drug trafficking against Tahil in alleged conspiracy with Shaikh. HC noted that for small quantities, the punishment is less -- maximum 1 year in jail; but for intermediate quantities (less than commercial) invoked against him, it is 10 years. Justice Jadhav said "the prosecution was aware" each single act of alleged procurement was "less than small quantities" and Tahil would get the benefit of doubt, and hence it combined all the alleged transactions without following the tenets of the exception carved under the law. Tahil had challenged a 2023 rejection of his discharge plea by a special NDPS court. Justice Jadhav, after hearing Tahil's counsel Ayaz Khan, who alleged non-application of mind by the police and "mala fide intentions" in invoking the charges, and after hearing prosecutor H Dedhia, said, "From the material available on record and invocations of charge… no case is made out for the applicant to stand trial." HC also said "the alleged WhatsApp chats... in my opinion cannot translate into admissible evidence" during trial. HC said the state failed to comply with CrPC mandate and it led to Tahil "being charged with an offence of a higher magnitude". That too, under a special law like NDPS, which attracts higher punishment and fine and stringent conditions to get bail, HC noted adding, stringent laws require reciprocal duty on police to strictly comply with the law and its aspects that may have a negative impact on the accused.
