Back
Burning Cotton Wicks Death: Grants Bail to Father Citing No
The has granted regular bail to Arjunbhai Sukhabhai Halpati, a father accused of causing the death of his daughter by applying burning cotton wicks on her body. Justice Nikhil S. Kariel, in his order dated , held that the incident did not reflect any on the part of the applicant, but rather appeared to be a .
A Fateful Act Born of Belief
The FIR was registered at , Valsad, under Sections 105 (), 212 (furnishing false information), and 54 (abettor present when offence committed) of the , along with . According to the complaint by the mother of the deceased, the applicant, alongside his other daughter—a trained nurse—applied burning cotton wicks on various parts of the deceased’s body. The deceased, who believed she was possessed, had instructed them to do so. Despite the complainant’s attempts to intervene, the father and daughter proceeded. They initially treated the victim at home, but when her condition worsened, she was rushed to a hospital where she ultimately succumbed to her injuries. The applicant had been in judicial custody since , and the charge-sheet had already been filed.
Arguments Over Intent and Necessity
, representing the applicant, argued that given the role attributed to his client and the nature of the allegations, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail indefinitely, especially since the investigation was complete. He emphasized the applicant’s willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
In opposition, vehemently objected, submitting that the nature of the offence and the applicant’s role, as revealed in the charge-sheet, warranted a denial of bail discretion.
Court Scrutinizes the Incident: No Malice, Only Recklessness
The court, after perusing the FIR, the sessions court’s order, and the investigating officer’s affidavit, noted several critical factors. It observed that the deceased herself instructed the applicant to apply the burning wicks because she believed she was possessed. The court also noted that the applicant and his nurse daughter attempted home treatment and only sought hospital care when the condition deteriorated. Citing the ’s decision in Sanjay Chandra v. (2012) 1 SCC 40, which outlines principles for bail consideration, the court found no .
Key Observations from the Bench
In his order, Justice Kariel made pivotal observations: “the present applicant, though, was instrumental in applying burning cotton wicks on various of the body of the deceased, yet, the same clearly appears to be an act, upon the instructions of the deceased daughter, who believed that she was possessed.” He further stated, “this Court has noticed that the entire incident, does not reflect any on part of the present applicant rather it would reflect rash and negligence act on part of the applicant.” The court also highlighted that the co-accused daughter, being a nurse, could have otherwise treated normal injuries, underscoring the tragic misjudgment.
Bail Granted with Conditions
The court allowed the application and ordered the release of the applicant on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount. The conditions include: not taking undue advantage of liberty, surrendering any passport within a week, not leaving Gujarat without prior permission, marking presence at the concerned police station once a month for six months, and not changing residence without court permission. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made in this order.
A Nuanced Decision on Liberty
The grant of bail underscores the court’s view that the absence of criminal intent can tilt the scales in favor of liberty even in cases involving death, when the act is performed under a misguided belief without malice. The case now proceeds to trial, where the evidence will be examined on its merits.
