The Delhi High Court has held that the offence of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be ruled out merely because the deceased woman died by suicide at her parental home. Justice Girish Kathpalia made this observation while dismissing the regular bail application filed by the accused Vinay in BAIL APPLN. 4627/2024.
Background
An FIR (No. 79/2023) was registered on 27 April 2023 at Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan on the basis of a complaint by Suresh Kumar, father of the deceased Raveena. The charges were framed under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC. According to the complainant, Raveena was married to the accused Vinay on 22 February 2023. The very next day, Vinay allegedly told her that she was not his choice and that he had married her under family pressure.
The complainant alleged that Raveena was subjected to dowry-related harassment and mental torture during her visits to her matrimonial home. It was claimed that the accused and his family expressed dissatisfaction with the Rs. 7,00,000/- given at the time of marriage, saying it was only enough to buy a small car, and demanded more money. On or about 15 March 2023, Raveena informed her father about the harassment, following which she returned to her parental home. She allegedly remained depressed thereafter. On 27 April 2023, she was found hanging from a ventilator in her home. The police arrived on a PCR call.
Arguments by the Accused
Counsel for the accused argued that since the deceased died at her parental home and not in the matrimonial home, the ingredients of Section 304B IPC were not met. It was also submitted that there were no allegations of dowry harassment during the period between 15 March 2023, when the deceased moved to her parental home, and 27 April 2023, the date of the incident. The counsel relied on several judgments including Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Nitish Chauhan v. State of UP, and Amarkant Mahto v. State, to contend that the prolonged delay in trial justified bail.
Opposition to Bail
The Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed the bail plea. They highlighted the continued communication between the deceased and the accused, particularly a 584-second phone call on 23 April 2023, just four days before Raveena’s suicide. They argued that the suicide was linked to ongoing harassment. The prosecutor referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 307, emphasizing the need for stricter judicial scrutiny in dowry death cases.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Kathpalia noted that the judgments cited by the defence did not support the present case. He distinguished the cited cases by noting that they involved different factual contexts, such as prolonged pre-trial incarceration or absence of crucial evidence.
The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Shabeen Ahmad and underscored that dowry deaths “strike at the very root of social justice and equality.” It held that courts must remain cautious and ensure that justice is not compromised by allowing bail to those accused of serious dowry-related offences.
Addressing the core contention, the Court held:
“I am unable to convince myself that merely because the deceased committed suicide in her parental home and not in her matrimonial home, it is not a case of dowry death. Place where a tormented lady gets compelled to kill herself has no bearing.”
Justice Kathpalia explained that Section 304B IPC, inserted by the 1986 amendment, must be interpreted with its legislative purpose in mind—to address systemic dowry-related abuse. He cited Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2021) 6 SCC 1 and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 207 to clarify that the expression “soon before her death” is relative and must be interpreted with reference to the entire pattern of conduct.
The Court noted that the alleged dowry harassment began immediately after the marriage and continued through verbal communications even after Raveena had returned to her parental home. The bail applicant had also filed for judicial separation on 19 April 2023, shortly before Raveena’s final phone conversation with him on 23 April 2023, and her suicide on 27 April 2023.
“In view of these circumstances, though yet to be tested in trial, I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the accused/applicant that the offence under Section 304B IPC would not be made out because there is no allegation of harassment soon before death of the deceased.”
Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the allegations, supported by preliminary evidence such as call records and consistent claims of harassment, were sufficient to reject the bail application. The Court held:
“In view of above discussion, I do not find it a fit case to release the accused/applicant on bail. Therefore, the application is dismissed.”
The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for the information of the accused.
