Delhi HC denies bail to man accused of shooting wife, stressing that “patriarchal entitlement” can never justify violence. Court reinforces strong stance against domestic violence and women’s subjugation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband cannot justify assaulting his wife on the grounds of anger or her refusal to live with him. The court stressed that such arguments are rooted in “patriarchal entitlement,” which the law cannot endorse.
Court’s Observations
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while denying the husband’s bail plea, remarked that accepting such arguments would effectively legitimise regressive ideas that seek to reduce women to subservience.
“Assertion of the wife to not be subjected to domestic violence cannot justify violence by a husband. To accept the plea of anger at the spur of the moment would amount to legitimising patriarchal entitlement, which is contrary to the intent of law,”
the court observed.
The court also made it clear that a marital relationship in such cases serves as an aggravating, not a mitigating factor, thereby rejecting the defence’s attempt to reduce the gravity of the crime.
ALSO READ: “Domestic Violence & Section 498A IPC are the Most Abused Provisions”: Supreme Court
Case Background
The case dates back to 2018, when the accused allegedly shot his wife in the abdomen outside Kalawati Saran Hospital after she refused to accompany him. The victim, who worked as a security guard at the hospital, survived the attack but underwent four surgeries and a month-long hospitalisation.
During the bail hearing, the husband’s counsel argued that the shooting happened in a fit of anger, with no intent to kill, stressing that he had fired only a single shot.
ALSO READ: Women, Domestic Violence, And Misuse: Dangerous Narratives
Prosecution vs Defence
Defence Argument:
The accused acted in a fit of anger, without intent to kill, and fired only one shot.
Prosecution’s Stand:
The accused had a criminal background, used an unlicensed firearm, and evidence from witnesses and CCTV footage corroborated the victim’s account.
The court sided with the prosecution, highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the threat posed by the accused.
Judicial Direction
The High Court not only denied bail but also directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months, noting that the accused had already spent nearly six years in custody.
Case Title:
Sushant Raj v. State (NCT of Delhi)
BAIL APPLN. 2304/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On Domestic Violence
