The Indian woman jailed for 19 years because nobody had $92

[Peaceful Civilian]

FROM India comes a story of injustice, desperation and a son's deep devotion to his mother.
A woman has languished in jail for 19 years because no one could afford to pay her bail. Her bail was 5,000 rupees. That's about $A92.

No-one could raise the money, so the woman had to stay in jail for two decades. There is also a report this morning that the Indian justice system is so muddled and inefficient, she wasn't even aware she had been granted bail.

The woman's name is Vijay Kumari. In 1990 she was imprisoned on a murder charge. In 1994, a court granted her bail, but she couldn't afford it. She gave birth to a son in jail. The son was taken away to a children's home just before he turned five. And still the woman languished behind bars.

The child, whose name was Kanhaiya, grew up. Kanhaiya worked night and day in a garment factory on a miniscule wage until finally he earned enough money to cover his mother's bail.
Then just this week, Kanhaiya paid the bail and his mother was released.

The fact that nobody from the woman's extended family could pay the bail 19 years ago has triggered much debate in this nation of 1.24 billion people and more than 1,300 prisons.

The High Court in the northern Indian province of Uttar Pradesh, where the woman languished in jail, has decided to take action over thousands of other people in local jails, many of whom have been incarcerated as long as Ms Kumari.

Authorities have directed that prisoners who have been granted bail should be handed over to the court at once.

That means many more men and women like Ms Kumari could be be reunited with their families - especially those without a son as devoted as Kanhaiya.


The Indian woman jailed for 19 years because nobody had $92 | News.com.au

 

[Desi Guy]

Not Injustice .She murdered her Husband..Bail was set at 5000 Rupee .but relatives refused to give her money because of the crime.

 

[420canada]

touching. and if she killed her husband the bastard deserve it he may have been abusive.

 

[That Guy]

touching. and if she killed her husband the bastard deserve it he may have been abusive.

Why is it automatically assumed that she killed a man (let alone husband) because he was somehow abusive? We don't know the story, if anything, she may have murdered him in cold blood.

We need to get out of these gender stereotype nonsensical assumptions and get facts.

 

[420canada]

Why is it automatically assumed that she killed a man (let alone husband) because he was somehow abusive? We don't know the story, if anything, she may have murdered him in cold blood.

We need to get out of these gender stereotype nonsensical assumptions and get facts.

may have been abusive. that what i said. but anyways women are abused and mistreated so there have has to been a motive behind it. but all in all if he was abusive he deserved it.

 

[punit]

Not Injustice .She murdered her Husband..Bail was set at 5000 Rupee .but relatives refused to give her money because of the crime.

even a murder accused gets only 12 years max. Here she was in jail 4 19 years. Fckng murder of natural justice.

 

[Spring Onion]

Not Injustice .She murdered her Husband..Bail was set at 5000 Rupee .but relatives refused to give her money because of the crime.

She gave birth to a son in 94 so if she had killed her husband in 1990, from where the kid came?

 

[bigzgvr4]

She gave birth to a son in 94 so if she had killed her husband in 1990, from where the kid came?

yeah whats going on their maybe the warden poked her or perhaps the corrections officer lol

 

[That Guy]

may have been abusive. that what i said. but anyways women are abused and mistreated so there have has to been a motive behind it. but all in all if he was abusive he deserved it.

even the "may have" is a big assumption, men are also abused by women, more often than people like to admit.

She could have murdered him in cold blood, so don't be too quick to pass judgement.

 

[Spring Onion]

even a murder accused gets only 12 years max. Here she was in jail 4 19 years. Fckng murder of natural justice.

her ordeal helped others. May God help the helpless.

That means many more men and women like Ms Kumari could be be reunited with their families - especially those without a son as devoted as Kanhaiya.
Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/centra...rs-because-nobody-had-92-a.html#ixzz2UwJuSWhB

What do they mean by the bold part here?

 

[Kavin]

Not Injustice .She murdered her Husband..Bail was set at 5000 Rupee .but relatives refused to give her money because of the crime.

No. She was arrested in 1993 in connection with the murder of a neighbor. Sentenced to life in prison, she denied the charges and in 1994 she was granted bail pending her appeal, but her husband refused to post the Rs.5,000 bail money.
Source: CNN

 

[Kavin]

She gave birth to a son in 94 so if she had killed her husband in 1990, from where the kid came?

She was five months pregnant when she was arrested in 1993. She didn't kill her husband.

 

[third eye]

touching. and if she killed her husband the bastard deserve it he may have been abusive.

Why is it automatically assumed that she killed a man (let alone husband) because he was somehow abusive? We don't know the story, if anything, she may have murdered him in cold blood.

We need to get out of these gender stereotype nonsensical assumptions and get facts.

Not Injustice .She murdered her Husband..Bail was set at 5000 Rupee .but relatives refused to give her money because of the crime.

No. She was arrested in 1993 in connection with the murder of a neighbor. Sentenced to life in prison, she denied the charges and in 1994 she was granted bail pending her appeal, but her husband refused to post the Rs.5,000 bail money.
Source: CNN

I saw an interview of the son on TV.

As mentioned by Kavin she did not murder her hubby.

Her son mentioned that on being sentenced she went to her husband seeking help - he was living with another woman by then & told her to push off.

 

[That Guy]

I saw an interview of the son on TV.

As mentioned by Kavin she did not murder her hubby.

Her son mentioned that on being sentenced she went to her husband seeking help - he was living with another woman by then & told her to push off.

I wouldn't put too much faith into the son's words. He has a vested interest in helping his mother, so his opinion is heavily bias.

 

[Spring Onion]

She was five months pregnant when she was arrested in 1993. She didn't kill her husband.

That is the point i was mentioning. If she was pregnant how can she kill her husband? and if the accusation is the same, the question arise why would a pregnant wife kill a husband? unless he is worth killing baboon