New Delhi, June 7, 2024 – In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court denied bail to a man named as Tilak accused of causing the death of his wife through torture and harassment for dowry. The petition for regular bail, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), was rejected by Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma after a detailed examination of the facts and the gravity of the case.

The case in question relates to FIR No. 645/2021, registered at the Kanjhawala Police Station in Rohini District, Delhi, under Sections 498A (harassment for dowry), 304B (dowry death), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, identified as Tilak, sought bail after spending nearly two years in judicial custody.

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a tragic incident where the wife of the petitioner, whose name has not been disclosed for privacy reasons, was found dead under suspicious circumstances. According to a PCR call received by the police on October 10, 2021, the victim was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital, with initial reports indicating she had died by hanging at her residence.

Subsequent investigations revealed a deeper story of continuous physical and mental abuse. The father of the deceased filed a formal complaint alleging that his daughter had been subjected to repeated torture by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of dowry demands. The complaint, made to the Executive Magistrate on October 11, 2021, further outlined that the victim’s husband, the petitioner, had been having an extramarital affair with another woman, adding to the distress caused to the deceased.

The charge sheet filed against Tilak and his family members indicated a pattern of abusive behavior over several years, including physical violence, mental harassment, and explicit threats. These incidents culminated in the unfortunate suicide of the victim.

Arguments Presented in Court

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the accusations were baseless and that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the case. They denied the allegations of dowry harassment, asserting that no demands for dowry were made by Tilak or his family either before or during the marriage. Furthermore, the defense claimed that the family of the deceased had spent a limited amount on the wedding and that the petitioner had even gifted jewelry worth Rs. 9 lakhs to his wife.

The defense also pointed to what it described as discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. The applicant had been in judicial custody for over two years, and the defense requested the court to grant bail in light of these facts.

However, the prosecution, represented by the State’s Public Prosecutor (APP), contested the bail plea. The prosecution argued that the allegations were serious and supported by statements from the victim’s family, who had consistently reported the abuse. According to the prosecution, the victim was driven to suicide due to the ongoing harassment by her husband and his family, especially in light of the demand for dowry and the mental toll caused by the husband’s extramarital affair.

Court’s Observations and Decision

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma carefully reviewed the material available, including the detailed testimonies of the deceased’s family members. The father’s statement revealed the emotional and physical torment endured by the victim, including repeated threats and abuse. The father reported that despite their financial sacrifices during the wedding, the petitioner continued to demand more money, allegedly to fund his business.

The mother of the deceased corroborated these allegations, adding that the petitioner had even physically assaulted the victim while she was pregnant. Moreover, it was revealed that the deceased had been forced to leave her matrimonial home multiple times due to the abuse but was pressured by her family to return, hoping for improvements in the situation.

A key piece of evidence was the recovery of a marriage certificate from an Arya Samaj Mandir, confirming that the petitioner had married another woman during the marriage with the deceased. Additionally, the court reviewed call transcripts between the deceased and the petitioner, which depicted threats and abusive language used by the applicant.

The court found that the evidence indicated a pattern of continuous abuse, both physical and emotional, inflicted on the victim, leading to her tragic demise. In light of the severity of the case, the judge emphasized that granting bail in such circumstances could send a wrong message to society, especially in cases of domestic abuse and dowry-related violence.

Conclusion

Considering the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence presented, and the fact that the victim’s life had been taken due to sustained abuse, the Delhi High Court dismissed the bail petition. The judge expressed concern over the social implications of leniency in such cases, underscoring that the ongoing abuse had left the victim with no option but to take her own life. The court reiterated that the case presented a tragic example of the continued prevalence of dowry-related violence and the harmful impact of marital abuse on women in modern society.

Justice Sharma’s ruling also clarified that her judgment should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case, as the trial is still ongoing. The matter will proceed in the lower courts, where further examination of the evidence and testimony will continue.

Impact and Significance

This decision reinforces the court’s commitment to tackling dowry-related violence and marital abuse, sending a strong message about the seriousness with which such cases are treated. It also highlights the importance of upholding justice for victims of domestic violence, particularly in cases where the allegations point to a history of ongoing trauma and manipulation.

As the case progresses, it will undoubtedly serve as a critical example for future cases involving dowry harassment, domestic violence, and the rights of women in abusive marriages. The court’s stance on bail in this case reflects an increased judicial awareness of the societal impact of such crimes and the need for stringent action to ensure the safety and dignity of women.