Delhi High Court

Anshul vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Sho Ps ... on 13 May, 2025

Author:
Sanjeev Narula

Bench:
Sanjeev Narula

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25th April, 2025
Pronounced on: 13th May, 2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 482/2025
ANSHUL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate
with Ms. M. Begum, Mr. Shailendra
Singh, Mr. Harsh Chaudhary, Mr.
Ishaan Jain, Ms. Avneet Kaur, Mr.
Sumit Singh and Mr. Surya Pratap,
Advocates
versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS GEETA
COLONY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with Mr. Lalit, Insp., PS-Geeta
Colony. Mr. M.N. Jha, Mr. Sarvesh
Kumar and Ms. Meenakshi,
Advocates for Complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. The Applicant, through the present application, under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly
Section 439
of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732), seeks regular bail in FIR No. 166/2024
under
Sections 498A
,
304B
,
of the Indian Penal Code3, registered at P.
S.
"BNSS"
"
Cr.P.C
."
"
IPC
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 1 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

Geeta Colony.

Factual Background

2. Brief facts, as set out by the prosecution, is as follows:

2.1. On 19th March, 2024, a PCR call, recorded vide DD No. 08A,
reported the suspected suicide of a woman named Shivani Singh. The
assigned ASI immediately reached Makkar Multi-Specialty Hospital,
located in Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi, where he obtained MLC No. 580/23-

24, which recorded that Shivani Singh, aged 32, had been brought dead to
the emergency department.

2.2. Upon inspection of the matrimonial home, where the incident
allegedly occurred, it was found that the deceased had died by hanging
herself during the late hours of 18th March, 2024. A ligature and a vegetable-
cutting knife were recovered from the scene and seized.
2.3. Investigation revealed that the deceased married the Applicant on 8 th
November, 2019. Since the death occurred within seven years of the
marriage, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gandhi Nagar, was informed
telephonically in compliance with
Section 174
of the CrPC. Statements of
the deceased's father, mother, and sister were recorded. They alleged that
the deceased had, during telephonic conversations, disclosed that the
Applicant was having an extra-marital affair with his office colleague named
Sarita. When confronted, the Applicant allegedly began physically abusing
the deceased. It was further claimed that, in the year preceding her death,
she had been regularly subjected to domestic violence. They also alleged
that the Applicant, having purchased a car, repeatedly pressured the
deceased to secure EMI payments from her family, and that he had
threatened to kill her if the money was not arranged.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 2 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

2.4 The Complainant (father of the deceased) stated that on 18th March,
2024, at about 10:25 PM, he received a WhatsApp call from his daughter,
during which she said that her husband was pressuring her to arrange the car
loan instalment payments. The call was traced on his mobile phone, which
was subsequently seized and forwarded to the FSL for data retrieval and
expert examination.

2.5. During the investigation, the Complainant submitted photographs,
chat transcripts, and two video recordings, allegedly showing the
Applicant's relationship with Sarita. One of the videos also purportedly
captures the Applicant verbally abusing and physically assaulting the
deceased. These materials were sent to the FSL for forensic authentication.
2.6. The accused persons also submitted two video recordings in their
defence. On examination, these were found to relate to the retirement
celebration of the Applicant's father. In one of the recordings, the deceased
is seen stating that she entered the family as a daughter-in-law and was
treated by her father-in-law as his own daughter. However, no reference to
the Applicant is made in the video.

2.7. Following completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and by
order dated 13th February, 2025 charges against the Applicant under

Sections 498A
and
304B
of the IPC, and, in the alternative, under
Section
IPC, have been framed. The Applicant has pleaded not guilty and has
sought to stand trial.

Applicant's Case

3. Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Counsel for the Applicant, contends that
the Applicant has been falsely implicated and seeks bail on the following
grounds:

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 3 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

3.1. The case of prosecution, rests largely on uncorroborated allegations
made by the deceased's family. The FIR, in broad terms, implicates all
family members and attributes the Applicant's role without any direct or
substantive evidence. The core allegation, that the Applicant compelled the
deceased to seek financial assistance from her parents to pay instalments for
a car is wholly unsupported by the material on record.
3.2 The marriage between the Applicant and the deceased was a love
marriage, solemnised after a period of mutual acquaintance during college,
and with the consent of both families. At no point, it is urged, was there any
demand for dowry, either directly or indirectly, by the Applicant or his
relatives. Consequently, the essential ingredients for invoking
Section 304B

IPC are plainly absent.

3.3. As per the chargesheet, in his statement recorded during investigation,
the Complainant himself admitted that no dowry was ever demanded by the
Applicant's family members.

3.4. As regards the car instalments, it is submitted that the EMI payments
were made by the Applicant himself, a fact verified and recorded by the
Investigating Officer. This conclusively discredits the allegation that the
deceased was pressurised to arrange funds from her parental home.
3.5. The prosecution has relied upon a video, allegedly depicting an
incident of abuse. However, according to the Applicant, the video is over a
year old and lacks contextual relevance. It is submitted that, in the said clip,
the deceased is seen provoking and verbally abusing the Applicant, and the
incident cannot be treated as indicative of events "soon before death," as
required under
Section 304B
IPC.

3.6. The Applicant had gifted a motorcycle worth INR 2,00,000/- to his

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 4 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

father-in-law and the vehicle remains in the possession of the Complainant.

A copy of the Registration Certificate has been annexed with the bail
application.

3.7. The FIR records that the deceased had called her father around 8:30
PM on the night of the incident. However, the call detail records, examined
and verified during investigation, show that the only WhatsApp calls made
by the deceased to her father occurred at approximately 10:25 PM. This
discrepancy, it is urged, raises doubts about the accuracy of the prosecution
narrative and is recorded in the chargesheet.

3.8. On 03rd March, 2024, at retirement party of her father-in-law, the
deceased gave a speech where she stated that she was happy to be a part of
the family and grateful for his father-in-law, who had given his full support
and treated as her own daughter. As per the sister of the deceased, she met
the deceased on 17th March, 2023 i.e., one day prior to her death, and she
was in very happy state of mind. Thus, she shared a civil and cordial
relationship with her in-laws and there is no indication that there was a
demand for dowry soon before her death or that she had been driven to
commit suicide by the Applicant or his family.

3.9. On 12th March, 2024, the deceased had posted a story on WhatsApp
where she mentioned "I am proudly to announce that both Parthu and I
have decided to part ways with Anshul soon we will be legally separated".
This message indicates that parties' decision to part ways was an amicable
one, and not driven by harassment or cruelty.

3.10. As per the mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of
ante mortem hanging and there were no external and internal injuries on the
rest of the body. This negates any allegation of physical cruelty in the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 5 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

immediate lead-up to the incident.

3.11. While the prosecution claims that the deceased had earlier disclosed
acts of physical abuse to her mother, no contemporaneous complaint was
ever lodged, either by the deceased or her family, during the course of the
marriage.

3.12. Even if the Applicant is assumed to have maintained a relationship
with one Sarita, such a relationship, by itself, would not constitute cruelty
under
Section 498A
IPC. In the absence of any cogent evidence showing
that this alleged affair was pursued with the intent to torment the deceased or
drive her to suicide, the essential ingredient of mens rea is absent. As such,
invocation of
Section 498A
IPC, it is contended, is legally untenable.
Respondents' Case

4. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State, and Mr.
Sarvesh Kumar, counsel for the Complainant, oppose the request and
contend:

4.1. The allegations levelled against the Applicant concern the grave
offence of dowry death under
Section 304B
of the IPC, a charge that
invokes a reverse presumption of culpability under
Section 113B
of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872,4 where the death of a woman occurs under
suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage.
4.2. The material collected during investigation, including the statements
of the deceased's parents and sister, video footage allegedly showing the
Applicant physically assaulting the deceased, and digital communications
indicating an extramarital affair, collectively suggest a pattern of sustained
physical and emotional cruelty. The prosecution maintains that the deceased

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 6 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

was subjected to persistent harassment, both on account of dowry demands
and emotional neglect, which cumulatively led to her unnatural death.
4.3. The testimonies of the deceased's family members, clearly point to
episodes of cruelty and coercion faced by the deceased in the period
immediately preceding her death, thereby fulfilling the legal threshold of
"soon before death" under
Section 304B
IPC. In such circumstances, the
statutory presumption under
Section 113B
of the Evidence Act is squarely
attracted, shifting the burden on the Applicant to rebut the inference of
culpability.

4.4. In view of the seriousness of the charge, the nature of the evidence
gathered, and the statutory presumption that now operates against the
Applicant, no case for bail is made out at this stage, and the application
deserves to be rejected.

Analysis

5. The Court has given careful consideration to the rival submissions and
examined the material available on record. The allegations pertain to the
unnatural death of a married woman within seven years of her marriage,
attracting the rigours of
Section 304B
of the IPC and the statutory
presumption under
Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act. The combined
effect of these provisions places a significant evidentiary burden on the
accused in such cases, where the death is alleged to have occurred under
suspicious circumstances and is preceded by cruelty or harassment related to
a dowry demand.

6. The Applicant has been charged under
Sections 498A
/
304-B
IPC, and
alternatively under
Sections 306
IPC. The ingredients of the offence under
"
Evidence Act
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 7 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

Section 304B
IPC, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in
Rajinder Singh v.
State of Punjab
, and consistently reaffirmed in a catena of judgments,5 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 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 elements form the statutory threshold for invoking the
presumption under
Section 113B
of the Evidence Act. However, this
presumption is not automatic. It is contingent upon the establishment of
foundational facts, particularly that the alleged cruelty was both linked to a
dowry demand and temporally proximate to the death. At the stage of bail,
the Court is not to undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence or return
conclusive findings. However, a prima facie assessment is warranted to
determine whether continued incarceration is justified.

8. In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the deceased died under
unnatural circumstances within approximately five years of her marriage.
Thus, the first two limbs of
Section 304B
IPC are met. The question that
arises is whether the remaining ingredients, particularly dowry-related
harassment or cruelty "soon before her death" are supported by credible
(2015) 6 SCC 477

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 8 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

material, so as to deny bail to the Applicant.

9. The prosecution case hinges largely on post-incident statements made
by the deceased's parents and sister. The allegations of dowry harassment
are specifically tied to the claim that the Applicant pressurised the deceased
to arrange funds for the payment of car instalments. However, no complaint,
appears to have been made by the deceased or her family, during her
lifetime, regarding this alleged demand. The absence of any
contemporaneous grievance prima facie dilutes the immediacy and
plausibility of the dowry-related harassment claim.

10. Further, as per the chargesheet, the car was purchased on 8 th
November, 2023, and the EMIs of the same have been paid by the
Applicant. This has been verified by the Investigating Officer and
acknowledged in the chargesheet. While the Complainant alleges that
certain bank transfers and cash payments were routed through the deceased
to support the EMI payments, the evidence cited in this regard is prima facie
inconclusive at this stage and will require substantiation during trial.

11. As regards the video in which the Applicant is allegedly seen beating
the deceased, it must be emphasised that for
section 304B
IPC to be
invoked, such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand
for dowry. The video in question is said to be over a year old, and whether it
indicates that the alleged harassment was indeed connected to a dowry
demand is also a matter that must be examined at trial.

12. The prosecution also relies on materials to suggest that the Applicant
was involved in an extramarital relationship with a woman named Sarita.
Certain videos and chat records have been cited in support. However, even
assuming such a relationship existed, the law is settled that an extramarital

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 9 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

affair, per se, does not amount to not, cruelty under
Section 498A
IPC or
abetment under
Section 306
IPC, unless it is shown that the relationship was
pursued in a manner calculated to harass or torment the deceased.

13.
In
Parul v. State (NCT of Delhi
),6 this Court observed that an extra-
marital relationship cannot be a ground to implicate the accused under

Section 304B
IPC. The Court held that harassment or cruelty should be
linked to dowry demands or sustained mental cruelty that occurred "soon
before the death." In the present case, the deceased is said to have disclosed
the alleged affair nearly a year prior to her death. There is no
contemporaneous material or specific conduct cited that would prima facie
establish a nexus between the alleged relationship and the dowry demand.

14. Similarly, with respect to the alternative charge under
Section 306

IPC, the law requires a clearly discernible act of instigation, provocation, or
intentional omission. Mere suspicion of an affair or even strained relations,
without more, does not meet this threshold. 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 encouraging the commission of suicide.
In
K.V. Prakash
Babu v. State of Karnataka,7
Supreme Court 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
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5499
(2017) 11 SCC 176, see also:
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat
, (2013) 10 SCC 48.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 10 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

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."

15. Thus, 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.

16. In the present case, prima facie, 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
existence and fulfilment of such ingredients are issues to be adjudicated after
conclusion of the trial.

17. The Applicant has remained in custody since 20 th March, 2024. The
investigation stands concluded, the chargesheet has been filed, and the case
is currently at the stage of prosecution evidence. Given the volume of
evidence and number of witnesses cited, the trial is not likely to conclude in
the near future. No risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice
has been demonstrated. In these circumstances, continued incarceration of
the Applicant would serve no fruitful purpose.

18. 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. Accordingly, in light of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 11 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

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 first Friday of
every month, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 12 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39

the merits of the case.

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

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

SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 13,2025
ab

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:NITIN KAIN BAIL APPLN. 482/2025 Page 13 of 13

Signing Date:13.05.2025

14:21:39