The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a husband accused in a dowry death case, observing that the absence of medically corroborated injuries and the lack of specific, time-linked allegations of dowry demands cast a “prima facie doubt” on the necessary live link between the alleged cruelty and the death.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, in the case of Akash Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025:DHC:10484), emphasized that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without meaningful progress in the trial impacts the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Background
The ruling came on a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (erstwhile Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.) seeking regular bail in FIR No. 374/2023 registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy under Sections 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Applicant, Akash Gupta, married the deceased, Moni Gupta, on December 1, 2016. On April 4, 2023, the deceased was admitted to BJRM Hospital with a suspected history of poison ingestion and was subsequently declared dead. Following her death, her father alleged that she had been subjected to persistent cruelty and dowry harassment by the Applicant and his family since the early years of the marriage.
The Prosecution alleged that dowry articles worth approximately ₹2,51,000 were given at the time of marriage, and an additional ₹2,00,000 was paid in 2018, yet demands continued. The deceased’s minor daughter also recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., alleging prior acts of violence.
Arguments of the Parties
Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate appearing for the Applicant, argued that the accused had been falsely implicated. She submitted that in six years of marriage, no prior complaint of cruelty was ever lodged. She contended that the Prosecution relied on “broad, omnibus assertions” without identifying specific dates or times of the alleged demands.
Regarding the statement of the minor child, Ms. Rao argued it was recorded nearly two months after the incident and was “vulnerable to tutoring.” She highlighted a critical contradiction: while the child alleged beatings and burn injuries, the post-mortem report recorded “no external injuries on the body of the deceased.”
The Applicant also submitted that he had been in custody for over two years and six months. Despite the charges being framed, none of the 29 witnesses had been examined, making a speedy conclusion of the trial unlikely.
Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, opposed the bail, relying on the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applicable to unnatural deaths within seven years of marriage. He cited the supplementary statement of the deceased’s father, which alleged that the deceased was beaten on 20-25 occasions and had called her mother on April 3, 2023—the day before her death—claiming she was being assaulted and pressured for money. The State also referred to a disclosure statement where the Applicant allegedly admitted to slapping the deceased after a quarrel over alcohol consumption.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sanjeev Narula examined whether the ingredients for the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act were prima facie met, specifically the requirement that the deceased was subjected to cruelty “soon before her death” in connection with a demand for dowry.
The Court noted the contradiction regarding the minor child’s testimony. Justice Narula observed:
“The statement of a child witness is certainly relevant and cannot be disregarded; however at this stage, it can only be observed that given the young age of the witness, the delay in recording the statement, and the absence of medical corroboration of recent assault, its ultimate weight and reliability will require careful evaluation at trial.”
Regarding the allegations of dowry demands, the Court found that the material on record, including a retrieved conversation between the deceased and her father-in-law, did not demonstrate a specific reference to a dowry demand immediately preceding the incident.
The Court observed:
“At this stage, the absence of medically-corroborated injuries and the lack of proximate, time-linked allegations of dowry demand cast a prima facie doubt on whether the necessary live link between alleged cruelty and the death stands made out.”
Taking into account the Applicant’s custody period of more than two years and six months, and the fact that no prosecution witness had been examined yet, the Court held that further incarceration would be unjustified. The Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s caution that bail is not to be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment.
Decision
The High Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of Akash Gupta on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
The Court imposed strict conditions, including:
- The Applicant must not leave the country without permission.
- He must appear before the Trial Court as directed.
- He shall not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He must report to the concerned Police Station on the first Friday of every three months.
The Court clarified that these observations are solely for deciding the bail application and should not influence the merits of the trial.
