Delhi High Court: In and application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR registered under Sections 498-A1/304-B2/343 of the Penal Code, 1860, Sanjeev Narula, J., stated that only allegations raised was related to an alleged demand for a car as dowry, and an alleged extra-marital relationship between the petitioner and his sister-in-law. The Court stated that mere suspicion of an extra-marital affair, however morally reprehensible it might seem, did not per se amount to abetment of suicide.
Thus, the Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on certain conditions.
Background
On 29-11-2023, an information was received that the petitioner’s wife (‘the deceased’) was brought to the hospital by her husband following an incident of alleged hanging that occurred at their house. The attending medical officer declared her “brought dead”. Thereafter, the officers concerned reached the location, when the petitioner’s sister-in-law was also present. The crime team inspected the scene of crime and took photographs.
Further, the petitioner’s sister-in-law, produced a multicoloured chunni, stating it had been used by the deceased to hang herself from a ceiling fan in the bathroom. She disclosed that she broke open the bathroom door, untied the chunni from around the neck of the deceased and ceiling fan and placed it inside a cupboard in the room.
Since the death of the deceased had occurred within seven years of marriage, an intimation was sent to hold inquest. Statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the Executive Magistrate. They alleged that the deceased had married the petitioner on 12-12-2022 and had since been subjected to physical and mental abuse by the petitioner and his family. Specific allegations included dowry demands, including a car, and claims that the marriage had not been consummated. The deceased was allegedly made to live in a bedroom without a door. An illicit relationship was also alleged between the petitioner and sister-in-law.
The charge-sheet was filed on 24-2-2024 before the Trial Court, and charges were framed against the petitioner and the sister-in-law under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC, and alternatively Sections 306/34 IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that on closer examination, prima facie, the material on record in the present case revealed significant ambiguities and lacked the specificity that Section 304-B of IPC demands. The Court observed that the allegation of dowry demand, primarily the alleged demand for a car, finds mention only in the post-incident statements made by the family of the deceased. Pertinently, there was no contemporaneous complaint by the deceased, her parents, or any other relative during her lifetime alleging harassment or demand for dowry. Further, the statements of the deceased’s family members were devoid of specific details, particularly with respect to the date, time, or frequency of the alleged demands.
The Court stated that it was further alleged that the petitioner was involved in an illicit relationship with sister-in-law, and that the deceased purportedly discovered them in a compromising position on two occasions in August 2023. While such allegations might carry emotional and moral weight, their veracity and relevance were matters that would be determined at trial. The Court stated that even after assuming, that such relationship existed or demeaning language in reference to the deceased, was exchanged via WhatsApp between them, these facts, stand alone, do not, prima facie, at this stage, disclosed the specific ingredients of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demand.
The Court stated that in the present case, prima facie, neither the complainant nor the prosecution had alleged that the petitioner was engaged in behaviour amounting to instigation, threat, or sustained cruelty of such a nature, as to trigger the deceased’s suicide. There was no indication of affirmative acts, whether by commission or omission, that drove the deceased to a state of desperation immediately preceding her death. Consequently, the statutory threshold for invoking Section 306 of IPC prima facie remained unsatisfied. The only allegations raised was related to an alleged demand for a car as dowry, and an alleged extra-marital relationship between the petitioner and his sister-in-law. The Court stated that mere suspicion of an extra-marital affair, however morally reprehensible it might seem, did not per se amount to abetment of suicide.
Thus, the Court stated that it was well-established that the object of granting bail was neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail was to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on certain conditions.
[Karanjeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln, 2971 of 2024, decided on 22-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: R.S. Juneja and J.S. Juneja, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State; Inspector Arjun Singh, P.S. Krishna N., Aman Akhtar, Mohd. Imran, Shoaib Ikram and Rashid Khan, Advocates for complainant
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)