The Gauhati High Court has granted bail to Major Shailendra Kumar Yadav, who, along with his wife, was arrested in September for allegedly torturing their minor domestic help.

Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund noted that there were compelling pieces of evidence against the petitioner and his wife. The images depicted severe mistreatment of the victim, though thankfully, the victim survived. The victim's testimony implicated the petitioner as well. He was aware of the cruelty inflicted on the victim by his wife but failed to intervene or prevent it. Essentially, he supported his wife's inhumane actions by not taking any steps to stop the relentless cruelty.

The ruling was delivered in response to an application filed by Major Shailendra Kumar Yadav under Section 439 CrPC, seeking bail. He had been in custody since September 25, 2023, related to a Police Station Case involving Sections 326/354/370/374/34/506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in conjunction with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As per the FIR, the individual who reported the incident had placed the victim, identified as 'X,' under the care of the petitioner and his wife. Regrettably, rather than fulfilling their responsibility to provide proper care, the petitioner and his wife exploited the situation, treating the victim as a domestic helper and subjecting them to relentless and inhumane mistreatment.

The victim was compelled to take care of the petitioner's infant and suffered unrelenting and brutal attacks, predominantly at the hands of the petitioner's wife, with intermittent involvement from the petitioner himself. The First Information Report (FIR) alleges that the petitioner and his wife inflicted severe injuries upon the victim.

The petitioner's legal representative highlighted that the petitioner has been in custody for a period of 70 days. Of particular concern is the petitioner's three-year-old child, who is presently grappling with a serious heart condition, including a cardiac defect. With the petitioner's wife in detention, there is a pressing absence of anyone to tend to the child's urgent medical needs.

The Public Prosecutor additionally argued that as an army personnel, the petitioner was sworn to protect citizens. However, in this instance, he stands accused of being complicit in endangering a citizen's life. Despite being aware of the atrocities inflicted by his wife upon the victim, he did not intervene or prevent them.

The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail plea, citing the First Information Report (FIR) that detailed how the petitioner and his wife, entrusted with the victim's care, failed in their commitment to her well-being. Instead, they subjected the victim to severe and inhumane treatment. Concerns were raised regarding the petitioner's status as an army personnel, indicating a potential threat to both witnesses and the victim. 

By underscoring the contradiction between the petitioner's role as a guardian and the alleged mistreatment, the Prosecutor emphasized how someone sworn to safeguard citizens was now implicated in endangering a life. The Prosecutor also highlighted the petitioner's knowledge of the atrocities committed by his wife against the victim.

The prosecution highlighted significant details from the Case Diary and photographic evidence, pointing out the severe injuries inflicted upon the victim, including a severed tongue, broken teeth, and extensive marks covering her body, notably on her back. Emphasizing the gravity of these injuries, the prosecution argued that such cruelty could not have gone unnoticed by the petitioner, particularly considering that the victim was under his protection.

The Public Prosecutor stressed the ambiguity apparent in the medical certificate presented to the Court, as even acknowledged by the Court itself. Additionally, the Prosecutor highlighted that the report, dated 22.11.2020, concerned the health condition of the petitioner's minor son when he was an infant. Considering the considerable time that has elapsed since then, the petitioner's son is currently over 3 years old, rendering the relevance of this outdated medical report questionable in assessing the present situation.

Case Title: Major Shailendra Kumar Yadav Vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Case No.: Bail Appln./4066/2023.