Delhi High Court

Karanjeet Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 April, 2025

Author:
Sanjeev Narula

Bench:
Sanjeev Narula

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 9th April, 2025
Pronounced on: 22nd April, 2025

+ BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32794/2024
KARANJEET SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja, Mr. J.S. Juneja,
Advocates.
versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State.
Inspector Arjun Singh, P.S. Krishna
N.
Mr. Aman Akhtar, Mohd. Imran, Mr.
Shoaib Ikram and Mr. Rashid Khan,
Advocates for complainant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly
Section 439
of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising
from FIR No. 750/2023 registered under
Sections 498A
/
304B
/
of the
Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Shahdara, Delhi.
Factual Background

2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows:
"BNSS"
"
Cr.P.C
."
"
IPC
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 1 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

2.1 On 29th November 2023, an intimation was received at P.S. Krishna
Nagar from Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,4 Delhi, reporting that Smt.
Gurpreet Kaur, wife of Shri Karanjeet Singh, aged 24 years, had been
brought to the hospital by her husband (the Applicant) following an incident
of alleged hanging that occurred at House No. 17/12, 2nd Floor, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi. The attending medical officer at GTB Hospital declared her
"brought dead" as per MLC No. 462/11/23. The said DD Entry was
assigned to SI Naresh Kumar for necessary action.

2.2 SI Naresh Kumar, accompanied by HC Sunil and the Applicant,
reached the location where the incident occurred. Smt. Prableen Kaur,
(sister-in law of the Applicant) was also present. The Crime team inspected
the scene of crime and took photographs. Broken bathroom tiles were
seized.

2.3 Co-accused Prableen Kaur, produced a multicoloured chunni, stating
it had been used by the deceased to hang herself from a ceiling fan in the
bathroom. She disclosed that she broken open the bathroom door; untied the
chunni from around the neck of the deceased and ceiling fan; and placed it
inside a cupboard in the room. The chunni was seized by SI Naresh Kumar.
2.4 Since the death of the deceased had occurred within 7 years of
marriage, in compliance with
Section 176
Cr.P.C., an intimation was sent to
the SDM, Vivek Vihar to hold inquest. Statements of the parents of the
deceased were recorded by the Executive Magistrate. They alleged that the
deceased had married the Applicant on 12th December, 2022, and had since
been subjected to physical and mental abuse by the Applicant and his
family. Specific allegations included dowry demands, including a car, and
claims that the marriage had not been consummated. The deceased was
"GTB Hospital"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 2 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

allegedly made to live in a bedroom without a door. An illicit relationship
was also alleged between the Applicant and co-accused Prableen Kaur.
2.5 The impugned FIR was lodged pursuant to these allegations. The
Applicant was arrested on 1st December 2023, along with co-accused
Prabhjeet Singh (brother-in-law of the deceased) and Jitender Singh (father-
in-law of the deceased). Co-accused Prableen Kaur was arrested on 2nd
December 2023.

2.6 A post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 30th
November, 2023. The autopsy surgeon opined, "the cause of death is
asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and viscera of disease has been
preserved for investigation". Viscera was preserved and sent to CFSL
Hyderabad for chemical examination, which later reported no detection of
common poisons, pesticides, alkaloids, or drugs.
2.7 The mobile phones of the Applicant and co-accused Prableen Kaur
were seized. The WhatsApp chats revealed that the Applicant used abusive
and vulgar language regarding the deceased in his conversations with co-
accused Prableen Kaur. Both the phones were submitted to FSL, Rohini,
Delhi, for the retrieval of deleted data, the results of which are awaited.
2.8 The chargesheet was filed on 24th February, 2024 before the Trial
Court, and charges were framed against the Applicant and Prableen Kaur
under
Sections 498A
/
304-B
/
IPC, and alternatively
Sections 306
/
IPC.
Applicant's Case

3. The Counsel for the Applicant seeks grant of bail on the following
grounds:

3.1 The Applicant is innocent, and has been falsely implicated at the
behest of the mother of the deceased with ulterior motives.
3.2 The investigation is complete, chargesheet has been filed, and charges

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 3 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

have been framed. The Applicant has already undergone over a year of
incarceration as an undertrial, and the trial is likely to take considerable
time. Continued detention at this stage infringes the Applicant's right to a
speedy trial under
Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
3.3 The charges framed against the Applicant are identical to those faced
by co-accused Prabhleen Kaur, who was granted bail in December 2023.
Bail is thus sought on the principle of parity.

3.4 The Applicant requires surgical intervention, which can only be
administered at a medical facility outside jail. Prior to his arrest, the
Applicant had been suffering from kidney stones, causing abdominal pain.
An Ultrasound of the abdomen conducted on 16 th August 2023 revealed the
presence of a 4 mm concretion in his right kidney, accompanied by left-
sided hydroureteronephrosis with a dilated upper ureter. His condition has
since deteriorated, with the stone enlarging to 17 mm.
3.5 The post-mortem report does not mention any anti-mortem injuries.
3.6 Neither the Applicant, nor his parents or any of his relatives ever
made any demand for dowry, either before or during marriage. In such
circumstances, it is wholly unreasonable to presume that any such demand
would have arisen subsequently, particularly after the parties had spent a
substantial period together post-marriage. Significantly, no complaint was
ever lodged by the deceased, her parents, or any other family member
against the Applicant or his relatives regarding any dowry demand during
her lifetime. The allegations in the FIR have been made only after the death
of the deceased, seemingly under external influence, with ulterior motives.
3.7 Pertinently, during the hearing of the bail application of co-accused
Prableen Kaur before the ASJ, the deceased's mother categorically admitted
that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. The said fact was duly

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 4 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

recorded in the order dated 22nd December 2023, wherein it was observed:

"On being enquired by the Court, the mother of the deceased/ complainant
stated that during the marriage no dowry was given."

3.8 The Applicant was not present at the scene of the incident when the
deceased committed suicide. He was at work and called the deceased around
lunchtime. On learning of the incident, he rushed home, took her to the
hospital, and informed her father. He remained fully cooperative.
3.9 Statements of the deceased's parents under
Section 161
Cr.P.C. differ
materially from their testimonies in court, which reflect an improved
version. The original statements lacked key allegations subsequently
introduced in the testimonies.

3.10 The allegation of dowry demand is vague and unsubstantiated, and
lacks any specific timeframe. Allegations of demand made "subsequent to
marriage" do not meet the legal threshold of "soon before death".
Respondents' Case

4. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, and Mr.
Aman Akhtar, Counsel for the Complainant, strongly oppose the request.
Mr. Ahlawat contends that the allegations levelled against the Applicant
involve the serious offence of dowry death under
Section 304B
IPC, a
charge that carries a presumption of culpability against the husband and his
relatives where the death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage
under suspicious circumstances. It is submitted that the material on record,
including the testimonies of the deceased's parents, indicate that the
deceased was subjected to sustained harassment, both physical and
emotional, by the Applicant and co-accused, Prableen Kaur. The nature of
abuse was not limited to dowry demands, but extended to personal
humiliation and denial of marital rights, as alleged in the statements

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 5 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

recorded before the Executive Magistrate and in Court. Further, Mr.
Ahlawat highlights the content of WhatsApp chats retrieved from the
Applicant's mobile phone, which contains vulgar and derogatory remarks
made against the deceased. These communications lend prima facie support
to the Prosecution's contention of persistent cruelty.

5. Mr. Aman Akhtar, counsel for the Complainant, adds that the parents
of the deceased have consistently reiterated the allegation of unlawful
demands made soon before the death of the deceased. He argues that the
Applicant's conduct points not only to domestic cruelty, but also to a
potential motive tied to his extra-marital involvement. He asserts that
granting bail at this stage would not only undermine the gravity of the
charge, but may also embolden the Applicant to influence or intimidate key
Prosecution witnesses. Both counsel stress that the seriousness of the
offence, the nature of evidence available, and the possibility of interference
with the trial process strongly weigh against the grant of bail. They urge the
Court to consider the statutory presumption under
Section 113B
of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which squarely applies in this case, and to deny
the Applicant the relief sought.

Analysis

6. The Applicant has been charged under
Sections 498A
/
304-B
/
IPC,
and alternatively under
Sections 306
/
IPC. The ingredients of the offence
under
Section 304B
IPC, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in
Rajinder
Singh v. State of Punjab,5
and consistently reaffirmed in a catena of
judgments,6 are as follows:

"9. The ingredients of the offence under
Section 304-B
IPC have been
stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients
(2015) 6 SCC 477.
Chabi Karmakar v. State of W.B.
, (2025) 1 SCC 398.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 6 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

and they are said to be:

(a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily
injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances;

(b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage;

(c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and

(d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand
for dowry."

7. These four conditions form the statutory foundation for invoking the
presumption under
Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts
the burden onto the accused to rebut the same. However, this presumption is
not absolute, and must be preceded by the establishment of foundational
facts as required under
Section 304B
IPC, including the specific allegation
of dowry-related harassment occurring "soon before death".

8. The death of a young woman within a year of marriage, under
unnatural circumstances, inevitably invites serious legal scrutiny. Yet, even
in such tragic cases, the Court must assess whether the evidentiary
foundation laid by the prosecution aligns with the statutory requirements. On
closer examination, prima facie the material on record in this case reveals
significant ambiguities and lacks the specificity that
Section 304B
IPC
demands. The allegation of dowry demand, primarily the alleged demand for
a car, finds mention only in the post-incident statements made by the family
of the deceased. Pertinently, there is no contemporaneous complaint by the
deceased, her parents, or any other relative during her lifetime alleging
harassment or demand for dowry.

9. Furthermore, the statements of the deceased's family members are
devoid of specific details, particularly with respect to the date, time, or
frequency of the alleged demands.
In this regard, it is crucial to refer to the
judgement of the Supreme Court in
Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 7 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

Haryana,7
the relevant portion of which is extracted as under:

16. The aforesaid position was emphasized by this Court, in the case of

Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
, (2000) 5 SCC 207, wherein the three-Judge
Bench held that:

"15. ... "Soon before" is a relative term which is required to be
considered under specific circumstances of each case and no straitjacket
formula can be
laid down by
fixing any time­limit. ... 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. .... 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."

(emphasis supplied).

A similar view was taken by this Court in
Rajinder Singh v. State of
Punjab
, (2015) 6 SCC 477.

17. Therefore, Courts should use their discretion to determine if the
period between the cruelty or harassment and the death of the victim
would come within the term "soon before". What is pivotal to the above
determination, is the establishment of a "proximate and live link"

between the cruelty and the consequential death of the victim."

[Emphasis Supplied]

10. Therefore, it is a well-settled principle of law that, for the invocation
of
Section 304B
IPC, it is mandatory to establish that the cruelty or
harassment inflicted upon the deceased occurred "soon before her death",
demonstrating a proximate and live link between such cruelty and the
consequential demise of the victim. In the present case, the absence of any
proximate allegation of dowry-related harassment close in time to the death
in the present case, creates a doubt in the case of the Prosecution.

11. At this stage, the Court is not to conduct a mini-trial, nor would it be
appropriate to render findings that might prejudice either side. However, for
the limited purpose of assessing whether the statutory presumption under
(2021) 6 SCC 1, see also:
Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
, (2019) 8 SCC 128.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 8 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

Section 304B
IPC stands attracted, a prima facie examination of the record
is warranted. In her testimony, the mother of the deceased stated that she,
along with other family members, frequently visited the deceased's
matrimonial home, and celebrated occasions such as Lohri, Makar
Sankranti, and Diwali, together with the Applicant's family. She further
acknowledged having attended the birthday celebration of co-accused
Prableen Kaur on 27th November 2023 at her daughter's matrimonial home,
just two days prior to the unfortunate incident. This conduct, viewed in
context, suggests that the deceased and her family remained on civil, if not
cordial, terms with the Applicant's family until very shortly before her
death. Prima facie, the record does not disclose any immediate or proximate
instance of dowry-related cruelty or harassment that could satisfy the
threshold of "soon before her death", thereby creating further doubt in the
Prosecution's version.

12. It has further been alleged that the Applicant was involved in an illicit
relationship with co-accused Prableen Kaur, and that the deceased
purportedly discovered them in a compromising position on two occasions
in August 2023. While such allegations may carry emotional and moral
weight, their veracity and relevance are matters that will be determined at
trial. However, even assuming arguendo that such a relationship existed, or
that vulgar or demeaning language was exchanged via WhatsApp between
the Applicant and his co-accused in reference to the deceased, these facts,
stand alone, do not, prima facie, at this stage, disclose the specific
ingredients of cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand.
This Court, in
Parul v. State (NCT of Delhi
),8 while considering a bail plea
under
Sections 304B
/
IPC, held that an extra-marital relationship cannot

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 9 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

be a ground to implicate the accused under
Section 304B
IPC. Such
allegations, as noted above, must be accompanied by conduct (i) linked to a
dowry demand, and (ii) shown to have occurred soon before the death of the
woman, in order to attract the offence under
Section 304B
IPC.

13. 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.
In
Shabeen
Ahmad v. State of U.P.,9
the Supreme Court cautioned that the grant of bail
in such cases must not be mechanical or perfunctory, and that courts are
required to exercise measured and informed judicial discretion, having
regard not only to the seriousness of the charge, but also to the broader
implications of such offences on social conscience. However, the
observations in Shabeen Ahmad cannot be read as laying down a blanket
prohibition against the grant of bail in every case under
Section 304B
IPC.
Rather, the Court reaffirmed that bail decisions must rest on the individual
facts and circumstances of each case, the nature and weight of the evidence,
and the overall context in which the allegations are situated.

14. In view of the above discussion, and upon a prima facie assessment of
the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, particularly with respect to
the allegations under
Section 304B
IPC.

15. As for the alternative offence under
Section 306
IPC, law demands a
threshold that is both high and precise. The Supreme Court has consistently
emphasized that, for a charge under
Section 306
IPC to be sustained, the
accused must have instigated, provoked, or engaged in facilitating or
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5499.
2025 SCC OnLine SC 479.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 10 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

encouraging the commission of suicide. The Prosecution, in such cases,
must be in a position to furnish evidence to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that any act or omission of the accused instigated the deceased to
commit suicide.10 In this context, the Supreme Court, in
Ramesh Kumar v.
State of Chhattisgarh,11
observed as follows:

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of
the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence
must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where
the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of
conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may
have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."

16. In the present case, prima facie, neither the Complainant nor the
Prosecution has alleged that the Applicant engaged in behaviour amounting
to instigation, threat, or sustained cruelty of such a nature as to trigger the
deceased's suicide. There is no indication of affirmative acts, whether by
commission or omission, that drove the deceased to a state of desperation
immediately preceding her death. Consequently, the statutory threshold for
invoking
Section 306
IPC prima facie remains unsatisfied. The only
allegations raised pertain to an alleged demand for a car as dowry, and an
alleged extra-marital relationship between the Applicant and his sister-in-
law. However, Courts have consistently held that mere suspicion of an extra-
marital affair, however morally reprehensible it may seem, does not per se
amount to abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court, in K.V. Prakash Babu
Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 14 SCC 264.
(2001) 9 SCC 618; see also:
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka
, 2024 INSC 156.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 11 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

v. State of Karnataka,12 observed as follows:

"15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the
strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an
individualistic perception regard being had to one's endurance and
sensitivity. It is difficult to generalize but certainly it can be appreciated
in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such
would not come within the ambit of
Section 498-A
IPC. It would be an
illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so
that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact
that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal
behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will
depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the
husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some
suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental
cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients
of
Section 306
IPC."

17. The Supreme Court clarified that, an extra-marital relationship per se
may not come within the ambit of
Section 498-A
IPC. In order to determine
as to whether such a relationship amounts to cruelty to attract the offence
under
Section 306
IPC, the other essential ingredients of the said offence
will also need to be satisfied, which will depend upon the specific facts and
circumstances of each individual case. In the present case, the existence and
fulfilment of such ingredients are issues to be adjudicated after conclusion of
the trial. Nonetheless, at this preliminary stage, the Court is of the prima
facie opinion that the invocation of
Section 306
IPC does not warrant the
denial of the relief of bail to the Applicant.

18. It is also pertinent to note that the father-in-law and brother-in-law of
the deceased have already been discharged, and the sister-in-law, who faces
identical charges as the Applicant, has been granted bail. The Applicant was
arrested on 1st December, 2023 and has remained in judicial custody for over
one year. During this period, the Applicant was granted interim bail, and
(2017) 11 SCC 176, see also:
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat
, (2013) 10 SCC 48.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 12 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

there is nothing on record to suggest that he misused the liberty extended to
him. The investigation stands concluded, and the charge sheet has already
been filed. The case is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence, and
given the nature of allegations and the number of witnesses cited, the trial is
unlikely to conclude in the near future. In these circumstances, continued
incarceration of the Applicant would serve no fruitful purpose.

19. It is well-established that 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.13 Accordingly, in light of
the foregoing facts and circumstances, the Applicant is directed to be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of INR 50,000/-
with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court/Duty MM, on the following conditions:

a. The Applicant will not leave the country without prior permission of
the Court.

b. The Applicant shall provide permanent address to the Trial Court. The
Applicant shall intimate the Court by way of an affidavit and to the IO
regarding any change in his residential address.
c. The Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is
taken up for hearing.

d. The Applicant shall provide all mobile numbers to the concerned IO,
which shall be kept in working condition at all times.
e. The Applicant shall not switch off his phone or change his mobile
number without prior intimation to the concerned IO.
f. The Applicant will report to the concerned IO on the second and
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI
, (2012) 1 SCC 40;
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
,
(2022) 10 SCC 51.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 13 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46

fourth Friday of every month, at 4:00 PM, and will not be kept waiting for
more than an hour.

g. The Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not
communicate with or come in contact with any of the prosecution witnesses,
or tamper with the evidence of the case.

20. In the event of there being any FIR/DD entry / complaint lodged
against the Applicant, it would be open to the State to seek redressal by
filing an application seeking cancellation of bail.

21. Needless to state, any observations made in the present order are for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence
the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.

22. A copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information
and necessary compliance.

23. The bail application is allowed in the afore-mentioned terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J
APRIL 22, 2025
as

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:AKANSHA SINGH BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 14 of 14

Signing Date:22.04.2025

19:53:46