Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused In Wife’s Dowry Death | Cites Live Video Call, Pregnancy, and Testimonies Alleging Persistent Harassment
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has dismissed a bail application in connection with the death of an 18-year-old woman within a year of marriage. The Court denied regular bail to the applicant, charged under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, citing material evidence suggesting harassment for dowry. The Bench directed that there existed prima facie material on record, including video call evidence, eyewitness testimonies, and post-mortem findings, which necessitated the continuation of custody. The Court, therefore, refused to grant regular bail at this stage of the trial.
On 6 February 2024, Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi, received information regarding the alleged suicide of an 18-year-old woman, married on 21 May 2023. Upon arrival, law enforcement found the deceased hanging from a ceiling fan. A post-mortem examination concluded the cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The deceased's father filed a complaint alleging mental and physical harassment for dowry by the husband. FIR No. 83/2024 was registered under Sections 304B and 498A IPC.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased had made a video call to her father at 9:00 PM on 5 February 2024. During the call, the complainant witnessed a quarrel between his daughter and her husband over non-fulfilment of dowry demands, specifically for a motorcycle and gold chain. Later that night, at 3:00 AM, the father was informed by the accused that his daughter had committed suicide.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused had no criminal antecedents and had been falsely implicated. It was argued that the post-mortem report reflected no external injuries and that disagreements between the couple were normal. The counsel further argued that the FIR lacked specific details regarding dates of dowry demands and that the evidence relied solely on testimonies from the deceased's parents, who resided in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh.
The applicant’s counsel also stated that the deceased was forced into the marriage, had previously attempted suicide, and was in a prior romantic relationship. It was contended that the investigation failed to explore these aspects. It was also argued that the applicant had been in custody since 7 February 2024 and should not be detained indefinitely.
Opposing the application, the State contended that the allegations were grave, involving the suspicious death of a young woman within a year of marriage. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the sequence of events, including the immediate video call before death, revealed a pattern of dowry harassment.
Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, after considering the arguments and material on record, stated: "The complaint of the father of the deceased, the contents of the FIR, and the sequence of events narrated therein indicate a pattern of harassment for dowry." The Court noted that the deceased had made a video call to her father on the night of the incident, where she was seen fighting with the accused.
On the question of parental testimony, the Court observed: "The deceased was married in Delhi by her parents, who reside in Hardoi, U.P. After getting their daughter married to a man residing in Delhi, they do not become 'private witnesses' qua their own daughter – they remain her parents forever." The Court rejected the argument that distance rendered their testimony unreliable.
Regarding parental involvement, the Court recorded: "In this era of advanced communication, parents remain constantly connected with their daughters, both emotionally and virtually. That is exactly what happened in the present case."
In addressing the video call, the judgment quoted the FIR: "I am the father of Mohini... Yesterday on 05.02.2024 at around 9 pm, I had a conversation with my daughter on a video call. At that time also both of them were fighting... At 3 am... I got a call from my son-in-law Ajay that your daughter has committed suicide."
Examining witness testimony, the Court noted: "PW-1, the father of the deceased, has supported the prosecution’s case in material particulars. He deposed that 'Ajay Kumar kabhi paisa mangta tha aur kabhi gadi mangta tha aur is liye meri beti aur Ajay Kumar ke beech jhagda hota tha.'"
Reflecting on the father’s experience, the Court stated: "This testimony starkly reflects the helplessness of a father, who, during a live video call, could do nothing but watch his daughter being beaten by the man to whom she had been married only nine months prior."
The Court further recorded: "I had not filed any complaint against the accused prior to the death of the deceased since I wanted my daughter to settle in her married life with the accused and I did not anticipate that she would die one day."
Regarding the mother’s testimony, the Court noted: "Similar is the testimony of PW-2, the mother of the deceased, who corroborated the allegations made by PW-1."
The Court also acknowledged the deceased’s pregnancy: "The deceased was three months pregnant at the time of her death... not only did the incident result in the loss of a young woman’s life, but it also extinguished the life of the unborn child she was carrying."
In discussing injuries, the Court stated: "Although... the post-mortem report attributes [toe injuries] to ‘post-mortem rodent activity,’ the MLC... clearly records these injuries as being present at that time."
Addressing the defence’s arguments on the deceased’s character, the Court held: "The deceased is no longer alive to defend herself against such claims – even as her character is being questioned." The Court found no record indicating prior suicide attempts or complaints filed by the applicant.
On continued detention, the Court stated: "While it is true that the right to bail is a valuable right... it is equally important to recognize and uphold the rights of the victim – especially in cases where the victim is no longer alive to narrate her version or seek justice for herself."
The Court also noted that three prosecution witnesses had been examined and supported the prosecution case. Referring to the judgement in X v. State of Rajasthan: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, the Court stated: "In cases involving serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., the Courts should be loath in entertaining the bail application - once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses."
The Court concluded that the prosecution’s evidence, including the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the FIR, and post-mortem findings, prima facie supported the case under Section 304B IPC. The Bench stated: "The right of the victim, especially a young woman who died while allegedly being harassed for dowry, and who was three months pregnant, must be given due regard. Her voice, now silenced forever, can only be heard through the evidence brought forth by her parents."
The Court found: "While the right of an accused to be considered for bail is well-recognized in law, the Court cannot ignore the material on record at this stage... which collectively support the prosecution’s case and prima facie disclose ingredients attracting the offence alleged."
Accordingly, the Court held: "This Court finds no ground to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage."
It further recorded: "It is clarified that a detailed order in this case has been passed and evidence recorded so far has been looked into and considered since the learned counsel had vehemently argued that there were contradictions in the testimony of the deceased’s parents and even the basic ingredients of the alleged offence were not made out in this case."
Finally, the Bench noted: "The observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of deciding present bail application, and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during the trial."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Yadav, Ms. Gultash Guron, and Mr. Sahil Siddiqui, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6092
Case Number: BAIL APPLN. 1874/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
