The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, presided over by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, has rejected the bail application of Major Deepak Tetarwal, a serving Army officer, accused of abetting the dowry-related death of his wife, Dr. Kavita. The judgment, rendered on December 13, 2024, in Bail Application No. 64/2024, followed detailed consideration of the allegations, evidence, and principles governing the grant of bail in cases involving grave offences.

The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), filed the bail application, asserting innocence and alleging that the charges were fabricated. The accusations emanate from the unnatural demise of Dr. Kavita, who died in her residence on October 1, 2023. FIR No. 467/2023 was registered at Police Station Rajouri.

The prosecution's case, based on an investigation initiated after the death, alleged that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in connection with unlawful demands for dowry. A suicide note recovered from the deceased's personal tablet directly implicated the petitioner and his parents. The forensic analysis of the suicide note and corroborative evidence gathered during the investigation were pivotal in framing charges.

The police commenced proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after receiving information regarding the death from the Army hospital. The investigation led to the seizure of personal devices belonging to the deceased, including a tablet and mobile phone, along with statements from witnesses, including the deceased’s mother. The prosecution claimed that the evidence unequivocally pointed to the involvement of the petitioner and his parents in abetting the suicide through persistent harassment over dowry demands.

The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated and maintained that the deceased had concealed a pre-existing psychiatric condition at the time of marriage. He asserted that he provided financial support to the deceased and did not demand dowry. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that at the time of the deceased’s death, he was posted in Bikaner, Rajasthan, and thus could not have directly contributed to the alleged incident. He highlighted his status as a serving officer of the Indian Army and sought bail on the premise of his professional commitments and societal standing.

The petitioner further argued that the trial court had erred in dismissing his previous bail application and that his parents, who were co-accused in the case, had already been granted bail.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, referring to settled jurisprudence on bail, observed that the determination of bail involves an assessment of the nature of accusations, the gravity of the offence, and the evidence available at the stage of investigation or trial. The court cited precedents, including Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi [(2001) 4 SCC 280] and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], which delineate the principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters.

The court held that the petitioner’s assertions of innocence and professional standing could not be accepted at this stage, given the weight of evidence, including the suicide note and witness statements, collected by the investigating agency. The court recorded that the petitioner’s status as a Major in the Indian Army heightened concerns regarding the potential for witness intimidation and tampering with evidence.

The judgment stated, “The position of the petitioner as an Army officer carries significant influence, which creates a reasonable apprehension that witnesses may be dissuaded from disclosing facts or that the prosecution’s evidence may be tampered with, directly or indirectly.”

In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the supporting evidence, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant bail. The judgment concluded that the petitioner failed to establish any exceptional grounds warranting bail in the present circumstances. The court refused to delve into the veracity of the petitioner’s claims of innocence, noting that such determinations are reserved for trial.

The bail application was dismissed, and the court directed that its observations would not prejudice the trial or be construed as an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused.

The court also addressed a connected petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner’s parents, who were co-accused. While the petitioner argued that the bail was granted in haste, the court found no grounds to interfere, as the conditions prescribed for cancellation of bail, as laid down in Himanshu Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2024) 4 SCC 222], were not satisfied.

Case Title: Deepak Tetarwal and Others Vs UT of J&K, SHO, RAjouri & Anr
Case Number: Bail App No. 64/2024
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Javed Iqbal Wani