Delhi High Court - Orders

Darshan Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 September, 2025

Author:
Neena Bansal Krishna

Bench:
Neena Bansal Krishna

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2880/2025
DARSHAN SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Deswal, Mr. Siddhartha S.
Yadav, Mr. Danish Khan, Mr. Ayush
Kumar Singh and Ms. Kashish Ahuja,
Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
Mr. Nikhil and Mr. Punit, Advocates
for Complainant

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER

% 19.09.2025

1. First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the Applicant/Darshan
Singh for grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 0705/2024 under
Section
498A
/
/
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 85
/
/
3(5)
of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, dated03.12.2024, registered at Police Station
Palam Village, District South-West.

2. It is submitted that the Applicant is a law-abiding citizenand has clean
antecedents and has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the present case
being the father of the main accused Pankaj Lamba whowas the husband of
the Complainant's daughter.

3. It is submitted that Pankaj Lamba (son of the Applicant) and Harshita
Barela (daughter of the Complainant) got married on 22.03.2024 according to

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:40:47
Hindu rights and ceremonies, in an arranged marriage. It was alleged by the
Complainant that the co-accused and his family, had subjected the
Complainant's daughter and her family to cruelty and harassment on account
of dowry demand, even prior to the solemnization of their marriage.

4. After the marriage, the co-accused Pankaj Lamba (husband) went to
United Kingdom, while the Complainant's daughter moved into her
matrimonial home in Dharoli. She was allegedly subjected to harassment and
cruelty, which led her to leave the matrimonial home and stay at her parental
house. She later moved to Corby City, United Kingdom, on 30.04.2024,
where the cruelty persisted until her death on 14.11.2024.

5. It was alleged by the Complainant, father of the deceased that his
daughter was subjected to cruelty by the Applicant and his family even while
she was in UK and that the same persisted during the subsistence of the
marriage till the date of thedeath of his daughter on 14.11.2024, about which
the Complainant was informed on 15.11.2024.On his Complaint, FIR under

Sections 498A
/
/
IPC was registered and thereafter,
Section 304B
was
added.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the
Applicant is in judicial custody since 14.03.2025. The prosecution has
wrongly added
Section 304B
as at the relevant time, the Applicant had no
nexus with the Complainant's daughter as she was residing in UK and it is
wrongly alleged that she was subject to any kind of cruelty orharassment for
or in relation to the dowry demand by the Applicant.

7. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions' Court has erroneously
dismissed Applicant's Bail Application vide Order dated 01.04.2025 and did
not consider that the FIR does not disclose any allegation of cruelty or

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:40:47
harassment "soon before death" which resulted in the dowry death of the
deceased. the Applicant has thus, sought bail.

8. It is also submitted that this Court vide Order dated 04.04.2025 and
Order dated 08.04.2025 has granted interim protection tosimilarly placed
co-accused persons namely Satinder Kumar, brother-in-law of the Applicant
and Lalita, sister of the Applicant. Also, vide Order dated 09.04.2025, Uma
Lamba, daughter of the Applicant has alsobeen granted anticipatory bail.

9. Reliance has been placed on
Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate
(1998) 5 SCC 749 to submit that at the time of consideration of
grant of bail, the Court has to take a prima facie viewof whether the offence
has been made out or not.

10. Reliance has been placed on the case of
Manohar Lal vs. State of
Haryana
, (2014) 9 SCC 645 wherein the Apex Court held that "Facts must
show existence of proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and death of victim".

11. Reliance has also been placed
Balwant Singh and Anr. vs. State of
Punjab
, (2004) 7 SCC 724, the Apex Court held that since one of the
ingredients of the offence under
Section 304B
IPC is that cruelty should have
been meted out to the deceased soon before her death; it is for the prosecution
to establish affirmatively that the victim was subjected tocruelty and
harassment based on dowry demand soon before her death.

12. The alleged dowry death took place in UK and that the Applicant being
here in India had no knowledge of what transpiredbetween the deceased and
the main Accused (Pankaj Lamba).

13. The Chargesheet in the instant matter has already been filed with
investigation having been completed and since Applicant has already been in

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:40:47
custody for over 4 months now which makes good the fact that any essential
information would have been gathered by the respondents till now and no
further interrogation is warranted. Thus, further custody of the Applicant is
notwarranted.

14. It is well settled that gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny
bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while
exercising its discretion. Reliance has been placed on
Sanjay Chandra versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
, (2012)1 SCC 49 and Sunder Singh Bhati Vs.
The State Bail Application No. 3750/2021.

15. Furthermore, the grant of Bail is a norm and refusal thereof is exception
and the Courts should exercise the discretion of Bail judicially and the Bail
should not be denied to an accused only as a punishment.

16. It is submitted that the Applicant is 60 years old and has clean
antecedents. He undertakes that he will not flee from justice if he isadmitted
to Bail and is ready and willing to co-operate with administrationof justice.
He is not a flight risk as his wife and 21-year-old daughter are also a
permanent resident of Dharoli, Jhajjar, Haryana and thus, has deep roots in
society. Further, since the investigation in the present matter has already been
concluded with Chargesheet having been filed, thereare no chances of
Applicant tampering with evidence.

17. Thus, it is prayed that Bail be granted to the Applicant.

18. Status Report has been filed on behalf the State and the same is taken
on record.

19. In the Status Report, it is stated that the Complainant in his complaint
has mentioned that his daughter had many times complained that her husband
and in-laws are not good people and they may kill her for want of money. It is

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:40:47
also mentioned that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was given to the family of
Pankaj Lamba for visa of UK in September, 2024. The deceased filed a
Domestic Violence Complaint against her husband, Mr. Pankaj Lamba, for
beating and dowry demands.

20. It was further stated by the Complainant that on 10.11.2024 at 10:00
p.m., his daughter made a video call to him wherein she was continuously
crying and was saying that she be taken away or her husband may kill her.
Sister-in-law,Ms. Uma also used to threaten her on phone from India.

21. The Statement of the parents of the deceased, namely, Smt. Sudesh and
Complainant, Mr. Satbir Singh, were recorded by the SDM on 30.11.2024
wherein they sated that dowry demands of huge cash and jewellery, was being
made by the husband and his relatives from the deceased since the date of her
marriage and she was being regularly harassed and tortured on this account.
She was also threatened that in casethe demands were not fulfilled, she would
have to bear the consequences.

22. The Bail Application is opposed on the grounds that there were specific
allegations against the Applicant for demand of dowry and harassment. The
investigation is at an initial stage and there is an apprehension of tampering
with the evidence and this Application deservesto be dismissed.
Submissions heard and record perused.

23. The allegation against the Applicant/father-in-law is that at the time
marriage of deceased was fixed with his son, demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was
made and the deceased was harassed for not bringing thismoney even after
the marriage. The fact remains that marriage between Applicant's son/Pankaj
Lamba with the deceased was solemnized on 22.03.2024.

24. The deceased had joined her husband in UK on 30.04.2024 where she

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:40:47
took up a job and the unfortunate incident of her demise on 14.11.2024 also
took place in UK. It is to be noted that the deceased had stayed at her
matrimonial house only for about 10-15 days, after which she moved to her
Parental home and from there she went to the UK. The alleged dowry death
occurred in the UK, while the Applicant was here in India and as such no
specific role as been ascribed to the Applicant. The Chargesheet stands filed
and there are a total 21 witnesses who are to be examined.

25. In the totality of circumstances, without going into the merits of the
case, the Applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing Bail bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- with one Surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
theTrial Court, subject to the undertaking that:-

I. The Petitioner shall not misuse the liberty of bail granted to
him;

II. The Petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or
documentary during the trial;

III. The Petitioner shall give his cell phone number to
theInvestigating Officer and keep it operational; and
IV. The Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on every date
of hearing.

26. With aforesaid, the present Bail Application is accordingly disposedof.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2025
va

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 21:40:47