The Delhi High Court granted bail to the husband in a dowry death case after ruling that the audio recording showed marital quarrels and allegations of beatings, but no specific dowry demands to justify continued custody.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to a husband accused in a dowry death case, holding that the prosecution’s audio evidence suggested quarrels between the couple but did not prima facie point to dowry demands. The bail was granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, and 34 IPC.
Background
The applicant, Rohit, married the deceased, Shivani, on December 8, 2022. Less than six months later, on June 3, 2023, Shivani was brought dead to Dr. BSA Hospital, where the history recorded suggested a death by hanging. After the death, the Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 176 of the CrPC. During the inquiry, Shivani’s father alleged that Rohit and his family routinely harassed her for dowry, ultimately pushing her toward suicide.
Following these allegations, FIR No. 564/2023 was registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy, and Rohit was arrested on June 6, 2023. By the time the bail application was heard, he had spent over two years and five months in judicial custody, despite the investigation having already concluded and the chargesheet having been filed.
Arguments Before the Court
Applicant’s Submissions
- The audio clip relied upon by the prosecution did not mention any specific dowry demand.
- Complaints reflected marital quarrels and allegations of physical violence, not dowry harassment.
- The applicant was in custody for more than two years, the investigation was complete, and the chargesheet had already been filed.
- Co-accused family members had already been granted anticipatory bail.
Prosecution’s Submissions
- Death occurred within seven years of marriage, satisfying a key ingredient of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
- Audio clip and photographs signaled ongoing physical abuse and harassment.
- The applicant was the central figure and could influence or intimidate witnesses if released.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Sanjeev Narula analyzed the scope of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes dowry death when:
- The woman dies an unnatural death,
- Within seven years of marriage, and
- Was subjected to cruelty soon before death due to dowry demands.
The Court held the first two elements satisfied but focused on the third, observing:
“The transcript of the audio clip “does not reveal dowry related demands. The transcript reflects quarrels and allegations of beatings, but contains no clear or specific reference to dowry demand by the Applicant.”
The Court emphasized that whether the statutory presumption applies must be determined during trial, not at the bail stage.
Reiterating that bail cannot be used as punishment, the bench held:
“Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, particularly once the investigation is over, is viewed with caution by the Supreme Court.”
The applicant had already spent over two years in judicial custody, with no need for further custodial interrogation.
The Delhi High Court granted bail, subject to the following conditions:
- Furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties.
- The Applicant must not influence or threaten witnesses.
- Must report to the Police Station on the first Friday of every three months.
- Must not leave India without permission of the Trial Court.
The Court clarified that these observations are not to affect the merits of the trial, which will determine guilt or innocence.
Case Title:
Rohit v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Bail Appln. 3329/2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Matrimonial Cases
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Secret Recording of Conversations