Delhi High Court

Rohit vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 24 November, 2025

Author:
Sanjeev Narula

Bench:
Sanjeev Narula

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 11th November, 2025.
Pronounced on: 24th November, 2025.
Uploaded on: 24th November, 2025.
+ BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025
ROHIT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Duggal and Mr.
Aryan Duggal, Advocates.

versus

STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
State with Insp. Mahender Kumar,
PS-S.B. Dairy.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 20231 seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 564/2023 registered under

Sections 498A
/
304B
/
of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 at P.S. Shahbad
Dairy. A chargesheet under the aforesaid provisions has since been filed.
FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2.1. The marriage between the Applicant and the deceased Shivani was
solemnized on 08th December, 2022. On 03rd June, 2023, information was
"BNSS"
"
IPC
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 1 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00

received from Dr. BSA Hospital that Shivani had been brought dead with an
alleged history of hanging.

2.2. Proceedings under
Section 176
of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19733 were conducted by the executive magistrate. In the course of these
proceedings, Shivani's father alleged that the Applicant and his family
subjected her to dowry-related cruelty, which drove her to commit suicide.
On this basis, the present FIR came to be registered.

2.3. The complainant handed over certain photographs and an audio clip
purportedly sent by the deceased, in which she is stated to have complained
of harassment and beatings by the Applicant.

2.4. The Applicant was arrested on 06th June, 2023. All the co-accused
have been granted anticipatory bail. Investigation in the case stands
concluded and chargesheet has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Manoj Kumar Duggal, counsel for the Applicant submits that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the material relied
upon by the prosecution, including the audio recording and photographs
attributed to the deceased, does not disclose any specific demand for dowry
and, at best, indicates ordinary marital discord or allegations of quarrels and
beatings. On this basis, it is urged that the foundational requirements of

Sections 304B
and
498A
IPC are not met, as there is no material to establish
a proximate or live link between any alleged acts of cruelty and the death in
question. It is further submitted that the Applicant has remained in custody
for more than two years; the investigation stands concluded; chargesheet has
already been filed; and no further custodial interrogation is required. Thus,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 2 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00

continued incarceration of the Applicant would be unjustified in these
circumstances. It is also emphasised that all co-accused family members
have been granted anticipatory bail.

4. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State, opposes the
application. He submits that the case concerns the unnatural death of a
young woman within the first seven years of marriage, attracting the rigours
of
Sections 304B
and
498A
IPC. He points out that the prosecution material,
including the voice recording and photographs, depicts sustained harassment
and physical violence, and that the complainant has made categorical
allegations of dowry demands by the Applicant and his family members. On
this basis, it is urged that the ingredients of the aforesaid offences are prima
facie satisfied. He further submits that the co-accused who have been
granted anticipatory bail are not similarly situated, as they are in-laws,
whereas the Applicant is the husband of the deceased and the central figure
in the allegations. Mr. Chauhan also raises a concern that if released, the
Applicant may attempt to threaten or intimidate the complainant or the
family of the deceased out of anger or a sense of reprisal, thereby posing a
risk to their safety and to the fairness of the trial.

ANALYSIS

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and examined the
material placed on record, including the transcript of the audio recording
relied upon by the prosecution. The Applicant stands charged, inter alia,
under
Section 304B
IPC, which creates a distinct offence of 'dowry death'
and is complemented by the statutory presumption under Section 113B of
"
Cr.P.C
."

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 3 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00

the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
.4 For this presumption to operate, the
prosecution must establish, at least prima facie, that: (i) the death of a
woman occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death
took place within seven years of marriage; and (iii) soon before her death,
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives,
in connection with any demand for dowry. Once these foundational facts are
established, the law permits a presumption that the husband or his relatives
caused the dowry death.

6. In the present case, the first two elements are, at this stage, not in
dispute. The marriage took place on 8th December 2022 and the death
occurred on 3rd June 2023, in circumstances recorded as an alleged case of
hanging. The real controversy, even at the threshold, concerns the third
requirement, namely whether there is material to suggest that the deceased
was subjected to cruelty or harassment 'soon before her death' in connection
with any dowry demand.

7. The prosecution places reliance on (i) the statement of the deceased's
father recorded during inquest proceedings under
Section 176
Cr.P.C., and

(ii) certain photographs and an audio clip said to have been sent by the
deceased. At this stage, the Court refrains from commenting on the
evidentiary weight of this material. However, on a prima facie reading of the
transcript of the audio clip, as also acknowledged by the prosecution, does
not reveal dowry related demands. The transcript reflects quarrels and
allegations of beatings, but it does not contain any clear or specific reference
to dowry demand by the Applicant. There is also no prior complaint or
report lodged with the police or any other authority regarding dowry demand
"the
Evidence Act
"

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 4 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00

before the inquest statement was recorded. Thus, whether the general
allegations of cruelty or harassment adverted to by the complainant and the
material relied upon by the prosecution meet the statutory threshold of
'cruelty in connection with dowry' and 'soon before her death' for the
purposes of
Sections 304B
and
498A
IPC is a matter that will require full-
fledged evidence and cross-examination at trial. At the stage of considering
bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or render any
conclusive finding on the applicability of the presumption under
Section
113B
of the Evidence Act.

8. As per the nominal roll, as on 1st October 2025, the Applicant has
remained in custody for approximately two years and five months. The
investigation stands completed and a chargesheet has already been filed.
There is nothing on record in the present proceedings to indicate that the
Applicant has any previous criminal history or that he has attempted to
abscond or interfere with the process of law during the period of
investigation. The trial is yet to conclude and, having regard to the nature of
the offence and the pendency of such matters, it is reasonable to expect that
it will take some time before it reaches finality. Prolonged pre-trial
incarceration, particularly once the investigation is over and the accused is
no longer required for custodial interrogation, has been consistently viewed
with caution by the Supreme Court.

9. The co-accused, who are family members of the Applicant and
against whom allegations also stand levelled, have been granted anticipatory
bail. It is correct that the Applicant, being the husband, is placed somewhat
differently from the in-laws and the principle of parity cannot be applied
mechanically. However, whether the prosecution ultimately establishes the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 5 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00

essential ingredients of the offences is a matter that will fall for appreciation
on the basis of the evidence, parties shall adduce at trial and cannot be pre-
judged at the bail stage.

10. The general principles governing the grant of bail are well settled.
Bail is not to be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment, and the primary
purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial.5 In
considering a bail application, due regard must be given to the nature and
gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction, the prima facie evaluation of the material, the likelihood of the
accused fleeing from justice, and the possibility of tampering with evidence
or influencing witnesses.

11. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, including the duration
of custody, the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the material on record,
and the settled principles governing grant of bail, this Court is of the view
that the Applicant has made out a case for being released on bail. The
apprehensions expressed by the State that the Applicant may threaten or
intimidate the complainant or other witnesses can be addressed by imposing
strict and enforceable conditions.

12. Accordingly, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹25,000/- with two sureties of the
like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty MM, on the
following conditions:

a. The Applicant shall cooperate in any further investigation as and
when directed by the concerned IO;
See also:
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 BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 6 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00

b. The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or
tamper with the evidence of the case, in any manner whatsoever;
c. The Applicant shall under no circumstance leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;

d. The Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
directed;

e. The Applicant shall provide the address where he would be residing
after his release and shall not change the address without informing the
concerned IO/ SHO;

f. The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the
concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times.
g. The Applicant shall report to the concerned PS on first Friday of
every 3 months;

13. 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.

14. It is clarified that 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.

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

SANJEEV NARULA, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2025/MK

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 3329/2025 Page 7 of 7

By:NITIN KAIN

Signing Date:24.11.2025

17:33:00