Delhi High Court: The present application is filed by the husband for grant of a regular bail in a dowry harassment case filed under Sections 80, 85, and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, where his wife (‘the deceased’) committed suicide by hanging herself within five months of their marriage. A Single Judge Bench of Ravinder Dudeja, J., after considering WhatsApp messages between the deceased and the husband; and a lump in left parietal region of the deceased, stated that there is a statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (‘BSA’), as the deceased has died within five months of her marriage and there are specific allegations that she was subjected to harassment by the petitioner on account of demand of a car. The Court, after considering the seriousness and gravity of allegations, and the statutory presumption, found no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Factual Background
On 17-7-2024, a PCR call reported that the deceased hanged herself in a room; thereafter the police reached the spot and found the deceased lying on the floor, who was later identified by her father. It was alleged that she had committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with the help of a chunni. Her father stated that she married the petitioner on 13-2-2024 and further alleged dowry harassment by the petitioner and his mother, for insisting her to get a car soon after the marriage, despite spending Rs 30-35 lakhs on her marriage.
It was submitted that the deceased tried contacting the petitioner and had made 54 calls immediately before her death, but he ignored them.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the investigation showed that the deceased was at her matrimonial home at Allahabad for 2.5 months and later, the couple shifted to Delhi in May 2024. The deceased joined a course in Lakme Academy, which she had to self-finance because the petitioner did not pay for it. Further, on the morning of the incident, i.e., on 17-7-2024, the petitioner out of anger, left home after having a quarrel with the deceased.
The Court also took note of the whatsApp messages “Natak na karo, aish karo ab tum”, suggesting escalated friction and a rupture in marital ties. Furthermore, a lump in left parietal region noted in post-mortem report, indicated the possibility of the deceased being hit by some object before her death.
The Court stated that there is statutory presumption under Section 118 BSA, as the deceased has died within five months of her marriage and there are specific allegations that she was subjected to harassment by the petitioner on account of demand of a car. The Court opined that the allegations are grave and serious, the trial was a nascent stage with charges already framed and so far, only one prosecution witness was examined. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that there is a possibility of the petitioner influencing the material witnesses.
The Court relied on Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghavendra Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2580, and observed that “dowry deaths are not mere family tragedies but grave social crimes that violate constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality, corrode societal values, and perpetuate systemic oppression of women, cruelty culminating in the death of a young bride strikes at the collective conscience of society, and therefore courts must remain cautious to these broader ramifications while adjudicating bail applications in such cases”.
The Court, after considering the seriousness and gravity of allegations, and the statutory presumption available under Section 118 BSA, found no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Thus, the present application was dismissed.
[Chetan Dubey v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8915, decided on 3-12-2025]
Judgment by Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Kislay Panday, Ankur Khurana, Tejas Mehta and Sunit Kumar Jha, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Manjeet Arya, APP;Harsh Tikoo, Manish Kumar Kasyap and Prabhakar Roy, Advocates
