Delhi High Court: An anticipatory bail application was filed by the accused who allegedly caused severe burn injuries to her husband, seeking bail on grounds of gender and arguing that she was a victim of domestic violence inflicted by her husband. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., rejected anticipatory bail considering the nature of injuries, way the injuries were caused and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court remarked that “Men who are victims of violence at the hands of their wives often face unique difficulties, including societal disbelief and the stigma associated with being perceived as a victim. Such stereotypes perpetuate the erroneous belief that men cannot suffer violence in domestic relationships. Thus, the Courts must recognize the need for a gender-neutral approach to such cases, by ensuring that men and women are treated alike.”
The present case involves a deeply troubling incident where the accused (applicant) allegedly caused severe burn injuries to her husband by pouring boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on his face, chest, and neck while he was asleep. The incident occurred on 01-01-2025, around 3:00 AM at their rented residence in Nangloi, Delhi. After committing the act, she reportedly locked the room from the outside, fled the scene, and took her husband’s mobile phone, leaving their three-month-old daughter crying in the room alongside the injured victim. Upon hearing the victim’s cries for help, the landlord’s son intervened, unlocking the door and finding him in a critical condition.
The victim informed the police that Jyoti had threatened him prior to the incident, stating, “Main tujhe dekh lungi” and later, “Main tujhe jaan se maarna hi hai” when confronted about multiple marriages, a concealed previous child, and evidence of false allegations of rape she had made against other individuals. The victim also revealed that he had recently lodged a complaint against the accused which further infuriated her and may have triggered the attack. An FIR was registered under Sections 110 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Nangloi Police Station.
The accused filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail, claiming false implication and alleging that the incident arose from a quarrel related to her husband’s interactions with other women on 31-12-2024. However, the State opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused had planned to kill her husband, as evidenced by his statement and the medical evidence. The investigation also uncovered the accused’s history of filing false rape complaints against multiple individuals and evidence of deceitful behavior, including concealing prior marriages and a child from a previous relationship.
The Court carefully reviewed the evidence, including the victim’s medical records, his statement, and the testimonies of witnesses. The injuries described in the medical legal case (MLC) revealed severe burns on his face, neck, chest, and shoulders, consistent with victim’s account of being attacked with boiling water mixed with chili powder while he slept. The Court noted the accused’s systematic actions to cause maximum harm, including locking the door from outside, taking the victim’s phone, and absconding, which indicated premeditation.
The Court also scrutinized the accused’s claim of being a victim of domestic violence but found no supporting evidence, such as complaints or medical records. Conversely, the victim’s account was corroborated by his prior complaint to the police and evidence of threats issued by the accused. The Court condemned the attempt to seek leniency solely on the basis of gender, emphasizing that judicial decisions must be free of biases and based on established legal principles. It reiterated that the pain, trauma, and consequences of injuries remain the same, irrespective of the gender of the victim or the accused.
The Court remarked that “The empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another. Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law. To suggest otherwise would violate the very basic principles of equality and human dignity, and this Court cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries. Creating a special class of leniency for one gender would erode the foundational principles of justice in cases of life-threatening bodily injuries.”
The Court denied the plea for anticipatory bail, citing the grave nature of the offense, the accused’s conduct, and the compelling evidence against her. It held that granting bail in such circumstances would undermine the principles of justice, particularly when the accused showed no remorse and failed to provide any credible explanation for her actions.
[Jyoti v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 292, decided on 22-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Jha and Ms. Aarti, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State
