The Delhi High Court refused bail to a man accused of shooting his wife, stressing that her decision not to live with him due to violence and his criminal behavior cannot be treated as provocation under law.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court denied bail to a man accused of shooting his wife, emphasizing that her refusal to live with him due to ongoing violence and his criminal behavior could not be considered ‘provocation.’
The Bench, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, noted,
“The victim in this case as prima facie apparent from the record had refused to live with him due to the continuous violence as used to beat her after consuming alcohol and was continuously indulging in criminal activities, had been jailed on several occasions, and had contracted AIDS due to his activities could not be taken as behaviour of a wife which could have infuriated him so as to premediate to try, to kill her from a close range.”
The Petitioner, represented by Advocate Gautam Khazanchi and facing legal representation from Advocate Naresh Kumar Chahar for the Respondent, sought bail for charges under Sections 307/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
He was accused of shooting his wife after she declined to live with him because of his criminal activities. His defense argued that he fired only one shot in a moment of anger and did not attempt to shoot her again, suggesting a lack of intent to kill.
The Delhi High Court remarked that the Petitioner himself acknowledged that he shot the victim out of anger when she refused to return to their home, characterizing the act as impulsive and driven by passion.
The Court stated,
“Claim of or plea of being angry as a husband on refusal of wife to accompany him to the matrimonial home brings to surface the patriarchal entitlement that a person feels entitled to, which this Court cannot support…Mere refusal of the victim/wife to accompany the accused would not constitute sudden provocation. The intent of the argument that the marital disobedience by the wife had provoked the husband to have tried to kill her has to be met with the finding and assertion by this Court that assertion of the wife to not to be subjected to domestic violence cannot justify violence by a husband.”
The Court further asserted that the wife’s refusal to live with the Petitioner, based on his continuous violence and criminal history, should not be viewed as behavior that could justifiably provoke him to attempt to kill her.
It emphasized that accepting the argument of anger in the heat of the moment would legitimize a patriarchal entitlement that reduces women to a subordinate status, where even their refusal to return to a violent home is seen as provocation.
The Court concluded that serious consideration must be given to domestic violence cases where there is an intent to kill, and the marital relationship should be viewed as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.
As a result, bail was denied to the Petitioner.
The matter was argued by Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Ms. Aditi Kukreja and Mr. Ayush Sachan, Advocates for the petitioner, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State, along with Ms. Puja Mann and Mr. Chandrakant, Advocates.
Case Title: Sushant Raj V. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7200)
Read Attachment