- (1.) M. Katju, J. This bail application relating to Crime No. 353 of 1992 under Sections 323, 304, and 504, I. P. C. of P. S. Puranpur, distict Pilibhit reveals that a large section of our people are mentally still living in the middle ages and are feudal minded. They look upon women as chattel or inferiors. This state of affairs will no longer be tolerated by this Court.
(2.) THE facts are that the applicant No. 1 Maya Prakash was married to Guddi Devi, daughter of the first informant Jagannath. THE allegations in the first information report are that Guddi Devi had come to her father's house. THE applicant No. 1 Maya Prakash (husband of Guddi Devi) along with the other co- accused came to the house of Jagannath, father of Guddi Devi on 26-1-1992 and demanded that Guddi be sent with them. When Jagannath said that they can take her after a few days, the applicants started hurling abuses, and when Jagannath requested them to stop abusing the applicants started beating Jagannath with Suriya, fists and legs. THE injured Jagannath (father of Guddi) subsequently died as a result of these injuries. A true copy of the post mortem report is annxure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the appli cation. THEre are injuries on the head of the deceased Jagannath, which shows the murderous intent of the applicants. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit and now this bail application has been moved before me. In my opinion, if the allegations in the first information report are correct the accused deserve harsh punishment. Under our Constitution a woman is not the private property of any man, not even her husband. If Guddi was unwilling to go to her husband, she had a perfect right not to go and she could not be forcibly taken away by the applicant Maya Prakash and the other co-accused. A wife is not the slave of her husband in our country. If there are differences between husband and wife, jt is open to the husband, to get a divorce or other suitable remedy but he cannot forcibly take away the wife from her father's house. If her father was restraining Guddi then the remedy of the applicant was to file a habeas corpus petition. It seems from the facts of the present case that the applicants think that a woman is the private property of her husband. This mentality and thinking has to be con demned as backward and feudal. In modern times women are equal to men and they have to be treated with respect. Our Constitution gives equality to women, vide Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Also Article 51-A (e) of the Constitution states "it shall be the duty of every citizen of India. . . to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. " It is high time now that people who think that women are their private property are severely dealt with and given exemplary punishment.
(3.) UNFORTUNATELY a large of our people have the feudal mentality and they treat women is inferior beings. Feudal mentality is rampant in the minds of such people and women are often maltearted by them in a barberic manner. It is the duty of the court to prevent this, and for this purpose the Court must take strong measures to oppose this social evil. In recent times the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been playing an important role in helping the country's progress towards modern times. The judiciary has been entrusted with the task of doing social justice, and must play a progressive and activist role. Several practices which are medeival and feudal in nuture are still persisting in our society For example, we often hear of the practice of sati even today. This is disgraceful. A practice which had been strongly opposed by enlightened social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar two centuries ago, and which had be legally forbidden in 1801 by Lord William Bentinck is regrettably still persisting today, and what is more unfortunate is that there are some people who even glorify it. This only reflects on the backwardness, inhuma nity, and stupidity of such people. As the great Emperor Akbar ironically remarked "it is a strange comment on the magnanimity of men that they should seek their deliverance through the self sacrifice of their wives" (See Ain-i-Akbari ). The sati in Rajasthan some time back received adulation from some of the so-called defenders of our culture, instead of being condemned as a barbaric practice. A few years back it was reported that in Banda district a woman committed sati', and those who were reponsible for persuading her or helping her to do so were not arrested and punished, and instead it is reported that even a high police official came and offered prayer at the sati site. Thus a person responsible for enforcing the law, who should have booked all persons involved in this barbaric act for murder, in fact acted as a collaborator (if the version is true ). This is abhorrent and repulsive to a modern mind. In future such practices will not be tolerated by this Court, and even high officials who do not take steps to prosecute the offenders will be regarded as acces sories to murder and shall be treated by the Court in accordance with law, Similarly, the practice of parda is feudal and a sign of backwardness, and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. One is reminded of the great Kemal Ataturk who suppressed this practice in Turkey.;