Delhi High Court

Vinay vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 April, 2025

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 02.04.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 07.04.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024
VINAY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with
Inspector Davender Singh from PS
Jaffar Pur Kalan
Ms. Amrita Sharma, Advocate for
complainant.

CORAM:
JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:

1. The accused/applicant, arrested on 26.05.2023, seeks to be released
on regular bail in case FIR No. 79/2023 of PS Jaffarpur Kalan for offence
under Section 304B/306/498A read with
Section 34
IPC. I heard learned
counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned Additional Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant de facto.

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 1 of 13 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07
14:50:25 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as
follows. On complaint dated 27.04.2023 of one Mr. Suresh Kumar, FIR No.
79/2023 for offence under
Section 304B
/
498A
/
IPC was registered by PS
Jaffarpur Kalan. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for offences
under
Section 304B
/
498A
/
IPC was filed against the accused/applicant,
his parents and sister. Currently, the matter is pending trial and six out of
forty prosecution witnesses stand examined.

2.1 In his complaint, which was registered as FIR, Shri Suresh Kumar
alleged that he got his daughter Raveena married on 22.02.2023 with Vinay
(the accused/applicant), but the very next day of marriage, the
accused/applicant told Raveena that she was not his choice and he had
married her under pressure of his family; that after marriage, 2-3 times
Raveena went to her matrimonial home where she was harassed by all the
accused persons, demanding money and stating that the amount of Rs.
7,00,000/- given by her parents would fetch only a small car, so she must
bring more money from her parents; that about one and a half months
earlier, Raveena had called him up to apprise him of the abovesaid
allegations, so he brought her to her parental home; that after shifting to her
parental home, she used to remain depressed; that on the day of incident
(27.04.2023), he was in his room while Raveena was watching TV in the

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 2 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07
14:50:52 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

other room and when she did not respond to his call, he went to the other
room where he found Raveena hanging with a dupatta from ventilator; and
that he immediately extricated Raveena and called PCR.

3. It is in the above backdrop that the accused/applicant has filed the
present application seeking to be released on bail.

3.1 Learned counsel for accused/applicant took me through the above
mentioned FIR statement of complainant de facto and contended that since
the deceased Raveena committed suicide admittedly at her parental home
and not at her matrimonial home, offence under
Section 304B
IPC is not
attracted. It was also argued on behalf of accused/applicant that even
according to the FIR, there was no harassment or dowry demand during the
period between 15.03.2023 when the deceased was shifted to her parental
home and 27.04.2023 when she committed suicide, so even if the allegation
of dowry demand till 15.03.2023 is believed, there is no material to show
that soon before her death Raveena was subjected to cruelty or dowry
harassment. Lastly, learned counsel for accused/applicant also argued that
going by its stage, trial would take long time to conclude, so
accused/applicant deserves to be released on bail. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel for accused/applicant placed reliance on the
judgments in the cases titled Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs State of

BAIL APPLN.
4627/2024 Page 3 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07
14:51:17 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

Maharashtra and Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine 1693 SC;
Nitish Chauhan vs
State of UP
, AIR 2023 SC 2149; and
Amarkant Mahto vs State
, 2020 SCC
OnLine 726 Del.

3.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant de facto also took
me through record and contended that the deceased was consistently
harassed and mentally tortured by the accused/applicant and his family
members not just till she shifted to her parental home, but even thereafter till
she committed suicide. Learned counsel for complainant de facto also
referred to institution of judicial separation proceedings by the
accused/applicant on 19.04.2023, which followed a long telephonic
conversation between the accused/applicant and the deceased on 23.04.2023,
triggering her suicide on 27.04.2023. So, according to learned counsel for
complainant de facto, the accused deserves no relief.

3.3 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail
application in view of heinous nature of crime. Learned prosecutor took me
through chargesheet to point out continuity of communication between the
accused/applicant and the deceased, especially the Call Detail Records
reflecting last conversation which took place for 584 seconds between the
accused/applicant and the deceased on 23.04.2023, after which on
27.04.2023 the deceased committed suicide. Learned prosecutor also

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 4 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07 14:51:45

-07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

submitted that one crucial witness related to the efforts of the complainant
de facto to resolve the issue amicably prior to death of the deceased is yet to
be examined. Therefore, according to prosecution this is not a fit case to
grant bail.
In support of his arguments, learned prosecutor placed reliance
on the judgment dated 03.03.2025 of the Supreme Court in the case titled

Shabeen Ahmad vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
, 2025 INSC 307.

4. To begin with, having perused the judicial precedents cited on behalf
of the accused/applicant, I am of the opinion that none of the same would
support his case. In the case of Javed Gulam (supra), the Supreme Court
recapitulated the principles of speedy trial and bail, holding that if the State,
including the Court, cannot provide fundamental right of speedy trial, the
prosecution should not oppose the bail plea on the ground of seriousness of
the crime, as the object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused at the
trial and bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In the said case, the
Supreme Court was faced with a situation where the accused was in jail for
four years but the trial court had not been able to even frame charges and the
prosecution intended to examine not less than eighty witnesses. That is not
so in the present case, as mentioned above.
The judgment in the case of

Nitish Chauhan
(supra) is basically a short order without any discussion on
the legal issues.

In the case of
Amarkant Mahto
(supra), only official
witnesses remained to be examined as all public witnesses had already

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 5 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.04.07 14:52:07 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

testified and a crucial aspect was the statements of the parents of the
deceased showing it to be not a case of dowry death.

5. The Supreme Court judgment in the case of
Shabeen Ahmad
(supra)
referred to by the learned prosecutor is the latest analysis carried out by the
apex court on the issue hardly one month ago. In the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dealt with the challenge to grant of bail to the parents-in-law
and sisters-in-law of the deceased in case for offence under
Section
498A
/
304B
IPC. After elaborate discussion on law and facts, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the parents-in-law of the
deceased, observing thus:

"11. At the outset, it is crucial to underscore the seriousness of an
alleged dowry death under
Sections 498A
and
304B
of the IPC, read
with
Sections 3
and
of the Dowry Prohibition Act..... Stricter judicial
scrutiny is necessary in matters where a young woman loses her life
in her matrimonial home so soon after marriage, particularly where
the record points to persistent harassment over unmet dowry
demands.

12. ..... In dowry-death cases, courts must be mindful of the broader
societal impact, given that the offence strikes at the very root of social
justice and equality. Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such
heinous acts to remain on bail, where the evidence indicates they
actively inflicted physical, as well as mental, torment, could undermine
not only the fairness of the trial but also public confidence in the
criminal justice system.

13. ... Moreover,
Section 304B
IPC (dowry death) prescribes a
stringent standard because of the grave nature of the offence and the
systemic harm it perpetuates. Where the facts clearly indicate direct
involvement in the fatal events, courts must act with an abundance of

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 6 of 13 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07 14:52:30

-07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

caution. Thus, permitting the father-in-law and mother-in-law to
remain at large would run counter to the ends of justice, especially
when the evidence reflects a probable nexus between their persistent
dowry demands, physical cruelty, and the deceased's death.
Consequently, their bail warrants cancellation so that a fair and
unimpeded trial may take place, in keeping with the legislative intent
behind anti- dowry laws.

....

15. We also find it necessary to express our concern over the
seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the High Court in
granting bail to the Respondent accused. While the Court did note the
absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the stark
realities of the allegations. It is unfortunate that in today's society,
dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the
courts are duty- bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the
circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social
message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be
overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances
within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect
heightened vigilance and seriousness. A superficial application of bail
parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but
also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat
the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both
within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we
risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent
lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous crimes
were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in
Ajwar v. Waseem
[(2024)
10 SCC 768] ...."

(emphasis supplied)

6. To recapitulate, in the present case, according to the
accused/applicant, offence under
Section 304B
IPC is not made out because
the deceased died at her parental and not matrimonial home; and that there
being no allegation of dowry harassment during the period between

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 7 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07
14:52:54 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

15.03.2023 when the deceased shifted to her parental home and 27.04.2023
when she committed suicide, the period is too large a period to be taken as a
period contemplated by the phrase "soon before her death" used in the said
provision.

7. I am unable to convince myself that merely because the deceased
committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it
is not a case of dowry death. Place where a tormented lady gets compelled
to kill herself has no bearing. For purposive interpretation of the provision
under
Section 304B
IPC, it is the existence and continuance of matrimony
which has to be kept in mind and not the place(s) to which the deceased
shifts herself before taking her life.

8. Section 304B was inserted in the
Indian Penal Code
by way of an
amendment in the year 1986 with the object of dealing with the cases of
dowry death, which apart from killing of a hapless lady surrounded by
adverse alien ecosystem, entail grave social ramifications. As contemplated
by
Section 304B
IPC, the dowry death is death of a woman caused by burns
or bodily injury or under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage, where she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any of his relative, which harassment or cruelty was for or in
connection with demand of dowry and had occurred soon before her death.

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 8 of 13 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07 14:53:18
-07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

8.1 The expression "soon before her death", as used in
Section 304B
IPC

has to be construed keeping in mind the scope and purpose behind the
enactment. Doing so, this expression has to be read as an expression of
continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time. Plethora of
judicial pronouncements flowing from the apex court and different High
Courts across the country reiterate that the expression "soon before" is a
relative term, which has to be considered under specific factual matrix of the
case in hand and no straitjacket formula can be laid down fixing any time
limit. One has to keep in mind that the legislature in its wisdom used the
phrase in question as "soon before" and not "immediately before". What is
contemplated by
Section 304B
IPC is "soon before death" and not
"immediately before death".

8.2 In the case of
Satbir Singh & Anr. vs State of Haryana
, (2021) 6
SCC 1, the Supreme Court held thus:

"10. Section 304­B,
IPC
is one among many legislative initiatives
undertaken by Parliament to remedy a long­standing social evil. The
pestiferous nature of dowry harassment, wherein married women are
being subjected to cruelty because of covetous demands by husband
and his relatives has not gone unnoticed. The Parliament enacted the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
as a first step to eradicate this social
evil. Further, as the measures were found to be insufficient, the
Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) was
passed wherein Chapter XX­A was introduced in the
IPC
, containing
Section 498­A.

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 9 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07 14:53:42

-07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

11. However, despite the above measures, the issue of dowry
harassment was still prevalent. Additionally, there was a growing
trend of deaths of young brides in suspicious circumstances
following demands of dowry. The need for a stringent law to curb
dowry deaths was suo motu taken up by the Law Commission in its
91st Law Commission Report. The Law Commission recognized that
the
IPC
, as it existed at that relevant time, was insufficient to tackle
the issue of dowry deaths due to the nature and modus of the crime.
They observed as under:

"1.3 If, in a particular incident of dowry death, the facts are
such as to satisfy the legal ingredients of an offence already
known to the law, and if those facts can be proved without
much difficulty, the existing criminal law can be resorted to
for bringing the offender to book. IN practice, however, two
main impediments arise ­

(i) either the facts do not fully fit into the
pigeon­hole of any known offence; or

(ii) the peculiarities of the situation are such that
proof of directly incriminating facts is thereby
rendered difficult."

12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid Law Commission Report,
and the continuing issues relating to dowry related offences, the
Parliament introduced amendments to the
Dowry Prohibition Act
, as
well as the
IPC
by enacting
Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act,
(Act 43 of 1986). By way of this amendment, Section 304­B,

IPC
was specifically introduced in the
IPC
, as a stringent provision
to curb the menace of dowry death in India.

.....

15. Considering the significance of such a legislation, a strict
interpretation would defeat the very object for which it was enacted.
Therefore, it is safe to deduce that when the legislature used the
words, "soon before" they did not mean "immediately before".
Rather, they left its determination in the hands of the courts. The
factum of cruelty or harassment differs from case to case. Even the
spectrum of cruelty is quite varied, as it can range from physical,
verbal or even emotional. This list is certainly not exhaustive. No
straitjacket formulae can therefore be
laid down by
this Court to
define what exacts the phrase "soon before" entails".

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 10 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07 14:54:06
-07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

8.3 In the case of
Kans Raj vs State of Punjab
, (2000) 5 SCC 207, the

Supreme Court analysed the provision under
Section 304B
IPC and after
traversing through various judicial precedents, held thus:

"15. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that the
statements of the deceased referred to the instances could not be
termed to be cruelty or harassment by the husband soon before her
death. "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be
considered under specific circumstances of each case and no
straight jacket formula can be
laid down by
fixing any time limit.
This expression is pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The term
"soon before" is not synonymous with the term "immediately before"

and is opposite of the expression "soon after" as used and
understood in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the
Evidence Act
. These
words would imply that the interval should not be too long between
the time of making the statement and the death. It contemplates the
reasonable time which, as earlier noticed, has to be understood and
determined under the peculiar circumstances of each case. In
relation to dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence
of cruelty or harassment to the deceased are not restricted to a
particular instance but normally refer to a course of conduct. Such
conduct may be spread over a period of time. If the cruelty or
harassment or demand for dowry is shown to have persisted, it
shall be deemed to be 'soon before death' if any other intervening
circumstance showing the non existence of such treatment is not
brought on record, before the alleged such treatment and the date
of death. It does not, however, mean that such time can be
stretched to any period. Proximate and live link between the effect
of cruelty based on dowry demand and the consequential death is
required to be proved by the prosecution. The demand of dowry,
cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of
death should not be too remote in time which, under the
circumstances, be treated as having become stale enough.

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 11 of 13 pages

Digitally signed by

GIRISH KATHPALIA

GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07

14:54:31 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

16. No presumption under
Section 113B
of the Evidence Act
would be drawn against the accused if it is shown that after the
alleged demand, cruelty or harassment the dispute stood resolved
and there was no evidence of cruelty, and harassment thereafter.
Mere lapse of some time by itself would not provide to an accused a
defence, if the course of conduct relating to cruelty or harassment in
connection with the dowry demand is shown to have existed earlier
in time not too late and not too stale before the date of death of the
woman".

(emphasis supplied)

9. Falling back to the present case, as mentioned above, in the FIR there
are specific allegations of dowry harassment. As also mentioned above, the
accused/applicant got married with the deceased on 22.02.2023; on the very
next day of marriage, the accused/applicant and his family members started
harassing the deceased over dowry, stating that the deposit of Rs. 7,00,000/-
brought by her from her parental home would fetch only a small car; on
15.03.2023, the deceased shifted to her parental home, after which she
continued to remain in communication with the accused/applicant over
telephone, the last telephone call being of 584 seconds on 23.04.2023, which
followed her suicide on 27.04.2023. In view of these circumstances, though
yet to be tested in trial, I am unable to accept the contention of learned
counsel for the accused/applicant that the offence under
Section 304B
IPC
would not be made out because there is no allegation of harassment soon
before death of the deceased. However, I must cautiously reiterate the rider
that the above analysis is only for examining the bail plea of the accused/

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 12 of 13 pages

GIRISH Digitally signed by
GIRISH KATHPALIA

KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07
14:54:56 -07'00'

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56

applicant, so shall have no bearing on the ultimate appreciation of evidence
by the learned trial court.

10. In view of above discussion, I do not find it a fit case to release the
accused/applicant on bail. Therefore, the application is dismissed. A copy
of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information of
the accused/applicant.

Digitally signed by

GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.04.07
14:55:25 -07'00'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 07, 2025/as

BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024 Page 13 of 13 pages

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NEETU N NAIR

Signing Date:07.04.2025

18:22:56