The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a husband accused in a dowry death case, observing that the audio recording relied upon by the prosecution prima facie reflected marital quarrels but did not contain any specific reference to dowry demands.
Justice Sanjeev Narula allowed the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), for offences registered under Sections 498A, 304B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Court noted that while the death occurred within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, the crucial requirement of establishing cruelty “soon before her death” in connection with dowry demands required a full-fledged trial. The bench took into consideration the Applicant’s custody period of over two years and the completion of the investigation.
Factual Background
The marriage between the Applicant, Rohit, and the deceased, Shivani, was solemnized on December 8, 2022. On June 3, 2023, Shivani was brought dead to Dr. BSA Hospital with an alleged history of hanging.
Following the death, proceedings were conducted by the Executive Magistrate under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During these proceedings, the deceased’s father alleged that the Applicant and his family subjected Shivani to cruelty related to dowry, driving her to suicide. Based on this, FIR No. 564/2023 was registered at Police Station Shahbad Dairy.
The complainant submitted photographs and an audio clip purportedly sent by the deceased, alleging harassment and beatings. The Applicant was arrested on June 6, 2023.
Submissions of the Parties
The Petitioner’s Arguments: Advocates Mr. Manoj Kumar Duggal and Mr. Aryan Duggal, appearing for the Applicant, argued that he had been falsely implicated. They contended that the material produced by the prosecution, specifically the audio recording and photographs, did not disclose any specific demand for dowry.
The counsel submitted that the evidence, at best, indicated “ordinary marital discord or allegations of quarrels and beatings.” Therefore, they argued that the foundational requirement of establishing a “proximate or live link” between the alleged cruelty and the death, as required under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, was not met.
Further, the defense highlighted that the Applicant had been in custody for more than two years, the investigation was concluded, and the chargesheet had been filed. It was also noted that all co-accused family members had been granted anticipatory bail.
The Prosecution’s Arguments: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State, opposed the bail, arguing that the death of a young woman occurred within seven years of marriage, attracting the rigours of Sections 304B and 498A IPC. He submitted that the audio recording and photographs depicted “sustained harassment and physical violence,” and the complainant had made categorical allegations of dowry demands.
The State argued that the Applicant, being the husband, was the “central figure” and not similarly situated to the co-accused in-laws. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential for the Applicant to threaten witnesses if released.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Narula examined the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding dowry death. The Court observed that for the presumption to apply, the prosecution must prima facie establish three elements:
- Unnatural death.
- Death within seven years of marriage.
- Cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with a demand for dowry.
While the first two elements were not in dispute at this stage, the Court focused on the third requirement.
On the Audio Evidence: Analyzing the transcript of the audio clip relied upon by the prosecution, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court further noted that there was no prior complaint lodged regarding dowry demands before the inquest statement was recorded.
On the Presumption of Dowry Death: The Court held that determining whether the allegations met the statutory threshold for Sections 304B and 498A IPC was a matter for 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.”
On Prolonged Incarceration: The Court noted that the Applicant had been in custody for approximately two years and five months as of October 1, 2025. Citing the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment, the Court stated:
“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.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the bail application, stating that the Applicant had made out a case for release given the totality of circumstances, including the duration of custody and the nature of the material on record.
The Applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount. The Court imposed several conditions, including:
- The Applicant shall not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He shall not leave the country without Trial Court permission.
- He must report to the concerned Police Station on the first Friday of every three months.
The Court clarified that its observations were solely for deciding the bail application and should not influence the merits of the trial.
Case Information
- Case Title: Rohit v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Case Number: Bail Appln. 3329/2025
- Citation: 2025:DHC:10412
- Coram: Justice Sanjeev Narula
