Father of deceased accuses brother-in-law for her suicide: If chargesheet has already been filed, is there any need of custodial interrogation? Del HC decides

Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., decides a bail matter wherein a woman was alleged to have committed suicide due to harassment and dowry demands by in-laws.

Factual Matrix


A bail application was filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution stated that the complainant who was the father of the deceased had lodged an FIR against 5 accused persons (in-laws of the deceased) including the applicant. Further, the complainant alleged that his daughter got married to the brother-in-law of the applicant. Soon after which, the accused family members including the applicant started to harass and physically torture the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands.

Specific allegations against the accused persons, wherein they were being held responsible for the death of the complainant’s daughter were also raised.

On being aggrieved of being beaten by the in-laws and thrown out of the matrimonial house, the complainant’s daughter committed suicide by hanging on the ceiling fan with a piece of cloth.

Analysis, Law and Decision


The applicant was the relative of the deceased, being the brother-in-law of the husband of the deceased, was living separately from the matrimonial home of the deceased.

The Bench noted that, there was a general allegation against the applicant in the FIR and no specific allegations were made against him regarding the demand of dowry. Also, there were no criminal antecedents of the applicant.

Hence, High Court opined that, no useful purpose would be served in taking the applicant in custody.

Since all the relevant materials have been collected by the police, and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet had already been filed before the Court below, this Court found that there was no necessity for custodial interrogation of the applicant.

Therefore, anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant. [Vinay Saharan v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 897, decided on 30-3-2022]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner:

Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Ranat and Ms. Megha Bahl, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP with Insp. Rajiv, P.S. Mangolpuri. Complainant in person

One comment

  • Not just very interesting and informative, but hats off for the extensive research and listing of references which makes it so much more authentic

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.