Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Section 483 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on behalf of the applicant-husband, seeking grant of regular bail for offences punishable under Sections 3021/304-B2/498-A3/344 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., every case tells a different story, and therefore, every case had a different outcome and adjudicatory order. While granting or rejecting bail, the Court remained conscious of the fact that a liberal and lenient approach at the time of grant of bail in a heinous crime, where a wife was brutally murdered, allegedly and apparently, under the influence of liquor at the spur of the moment, could be counter-productive and defeated the very purpose and intent of Section 304-B of IPC.
Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the gravity of the offence, the Court stated that no ground for grant of bail was made out at this stage and accordingly, dismissed the bail application.
Background
On 17-06-2021, a PCR call was received regarding the murder of a woman. Thereafter, ASI and a constable reached at the spot, and found that one female dead body was lying on the bed in one room situated at the ground floor of the property concerned.
After the victim was identified, the maternal uncle of the victim, informed that the victim married in April 2021, and her husband had beaten and murdered her by strangulation, and ran away from the spot. Since the unnatural death of the victim had occurred within seven years of the marriage, the matter was reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, for further inspection and necessary action. The victim’s parents were informed about the death of their daughter, and their statements were recorded. Based on the statement of victim’s father, the present FIR was registered.
The victim’s father disclosed that since the victim’s marriage, he and his parents had constantly demanded dowry whereas the victim’s father had already provided all the possible household articles at the time of marriage. However, all the accused persons, i.e. the victim’s in-laws had kept on harassing and abusing her daughter. During the investigation, the post-mortem of the victim was conducted at AIIMS, Delhi which revealed that there were 33 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the victim. Accordingly, all the accused persons were arrested in the case on 18-06-2021.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the post-mortem report categorically enlisted 33 ante-mortem injuries and details of manual strangulation and smothering of the victim reflected as to how the victim had suffered a traumatic end of her life. The Court stated that the fact that the present accused was victim’s husband, and had allegedly killed her, in a drunken state and allegedly at the spur of the moment, did not mitigate the seriousness of the offence but rather multiplied it. Being the wife, the victim could not have thought that the person she had been married to, would kill her brutally after consuming liquor, just because her parents did not agree to sell their land, a land which was theirs, and not of the husband, which he demanded as a matter of right.
The Court stated that every case tells a different story, and therefore, every case had a different outcome and adjudicatory order. While granting or rejecting bail, the Court remained conscious of the fact that a liberal and lenient approach at the time of grant of bail in a heinous crime, where a wife was brutally murdered, allegedly and apparently, under the influence of liquor at the spur of the moment, could be counter-productive and defeated the very purpose and intent of Section 304-B of IPC.
The Court stated that like the present case, cases of dowry death and murder often revealed a distressing pattern. Families of the victims frequently mention that their daughters had complained about being tortured and feared for their lives due to unmet dowry demands. However, due to societal pressure and the fear of social stigma, these families often suggest or compel their daughters to try and adjust and live in their matrimonial homes, where they were subsequently killed or driven to suicide. The Court stated that this mindset was exploited by the perpetrators including a husband, who exploits the situation that the wife has nowhere else to go, as her parental family was also advising her to live with him, despite the torture and physical abuse. In cases such as the present one, granting bail liberally could encourage such practices and offences.
Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the gravity of the offence, the Court stated that no ground for grant of bail was made out at this stage and accordingly, dismissed the bail application.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln., 159 of 2025, decided on 16-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Pramod, Ajay Kumar Yadav and Piyushi Garg, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP for the State.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 103 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
2. Corresponding Section 80 of BNS