The Delhi High Court said dowry death affects dignity, equality, and justice in domestic life. However, it clarified that there is no complete bar on bail in such cases, and each application must be assessed based on its merits.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has stated that while the offense of dowry death undermines the principles of dignity, equality, and justice in domestic life, there is no absolute prohibition against granting bail in such cases.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, while granting bail to a defendant accused of dowry death, acknowledged the serious nature of these incidents and their prevalence in society.
Also Read: LEGAL EXPLAINER | Is Alimony the New Dowry? Who Really Pays the Price of Marriage?
However, he emphasized that bail decisions should be based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
In the current case, the accused’s wife died in November 2023, reportedly by hanging herself from a ceiling fan in the bathroom. Justice Narula noted that the death of a young woman within a year of marriage under suspicious circumstances naturally invites thorough legal examination.
However, the evidence in this case showed significant ambiguities and did not meet the specific requirements outlined in Section 304B (dowry death) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court stated in its judgment dated April 22,
“This Court remains fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of dowry deaths. Such offences strike at the foundations of dignity, equality, and justice in domestic life,”
The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s remarks in the Shabeen Ahmad case, clarifying that these comments should not be interpreted as a blanket ban on granting bail under Section 304B IPC.
Also Read: Supreme Court Shocker: “Dowry Not Needed to Prove Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC”
Instead, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that bail decisions must consider the individual facts, the nature and weight of the evidence, and the overall context of the allegations.
In this case, the Court noted that the lack of any immediate allegations prior to the death raised doubts, and the victim’s family’s statements lacked specific details regarding the timing and frequency of any alleged dowry demands.
The assertion of a demand for a car appeared only in statements made after the incident, with no prior complaints of harassment or dowry demands during the victim’s life.
Regarding Section 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, the Court stated that mere suspicion of an extramarital affair does not constitute abetment. There were no prima facie allegations indicating that the accused engaged in conduct that could have led to the victim’s suicide.
The Court further clarified that an extramarital relationship does not necessarily fall under Section 498-A (cruelty) IPC.
Also Read: Delhi High Court: “Just Asking for Dowry is NOT a Crime Under Section 498A IPC”
Considering that the chargesheet had been filed after the investigation and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the Court concluded that keeping the accused in custody would not serve a beneficial purpose.
It also pointed out that the victim’s father-in-law and brother-in-law had already been discharged, and the sister-in-law, facing similar charges, was out on bail.
The Court granted bail to the applicant under specific conditions, stating,
“The object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial.”