Mr. R.S. Juneja, Mr. J.S. Juneja, Advocates v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Judgment

1. The present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 (formerly Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732) seeks regular bail in the proceedings arising from FIR No. 750/2023 registered under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 at P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Shahdara, Delhi. Factual Background

2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows: 1 “BNSS” 2 “Cr.P.C.” 3 “IPC” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:22.04.2025 19:53:46 BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 1 of 14

2.1 On 29th November 2023, an intimation was received at P.S. Krishna Nagar from Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,4 Delhi, reporting that Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, wife of Shri Karanjeet Singh, aged 24 years, had been brought to the hospital by her husband (the Applicant) following an incident of alleged hanging that occurred at House No. 17/12, 2nd Floor, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The attending medical officer at GTB Hospital declared her “brought dead” as per MLC No. 462/11/23. The said DD Entry was assigned to SI Naresh Kumar for necessary action.

2.2 SI Naresh Kumar, accompanied by HC Sunil and the Applicant,

reached the location where the incident occurred. Smt. Prableen Kaur, (sister-in law of the Applicant) was also present. The Crime team inspected the scene of crime and took photographs. Broken bathroom tiles were seized.

2.3 Co-accused Prableen Kaur, produced a multicoloured chunni, stating it had been used by the deceased to hang herself from a ceiling fan in the bathroom. She disclosed that she broken open the bathroom door; untied the chunni from around the neck of the deceased and ceiling fan; and placed it inside a cupboard in the room. The chunni was seized by SI Naresh Kumar.

2.4 Since the death of the deceased had occurred within 7 years of marriage, in compliance with Section 176 Cr.P.C., an intimation was sent to the SDM, Vivek Vihar to hold inquest. Statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the Executive Magistrate. They alleged that the deceased had married the Applicant on 12th December, 2022, and had since been subjected to physical and mental abuse by the Applicant and his family. Specific allegations included dowry demands, including a car, and claims that the marriage had not been consummated. The deceased was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:22.04.2025 19:53:46 4 “GTB Hospital” BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 2 of 14 allegedly made to live in a bedroom without a door. An illicit relationship was also alleged between the Applicant and co-accused Prableen Kaur.

2.5 The impugned FIR was lodged pursuant to these allegations. The Applicant was arrested on 1st December 2023, along with co-accused Prabhjeet Singh (brother-in-law of the deceased) and Jitender Singh (father- in-law of the deceased). Co-accused Prableen Kaur was arrested on 2nd December 2023.

2.6 A post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 30th November, 2023. The autopsy surgeon opined, “the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging and viscera of disease has been preserved for investigation”. Viscera was preserved and sent to CFSL Hyderabad for chemical examination, which later reported no detection of common poisons, pesticides, alkaloids, or drugs.

2.7 The mobile phones of the Applicant and co-accused Prableen Kaur were seized. The WhatsApp chats revealed that the Applicant used abusive and vulgar language regarding the deceased in his conversations with co- accused Prableen Kaur. Both the phones were submitted to FSL, Rohini, Delhi, for the retrieval of deleted data, the results of which are awaited.

2.8 The chargesheet was filed on 24th February, 2024 before the Trial Court, and charges were framed against the Applicant and Prableen Kaur under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPC, and alternatively Sections 306/34 IPC. Applicant’s Case

3. The Counsel for the Applicant seeks grant of bail on the following grounds:

3.1 The Applicant is innocent, and has been falsely implicated at the behest of the mother of the deceased with ulterior motives.

3.2 The investigation is complete, chargesheet has been filed, and charges BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:22.04.2025 19:53:46 have been framed. The Applicant has already undergone over a year of incarceration as an undertrial, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Continued detention at this stage infringes the Applicant’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3.3 The charges framed against the Applicant are identical to those faced by co-accused Prabhleen Kaur, who was granted bail in December 2023. Bail is thus sought on the principle of parity.

3.4 The Applicant requires surgical intervention, which can only be administered at a medical facility outside jail. Prior to his arrest, the Applicant had been suffering from kidney stones, causing abdominal pain. An Ultrasound of the abdomen conducted on 16th August 2023 revealed the presence of a 4 mm concretion in his right kidney, accompanied by left- sided hydroureteronephrosis with a dilated upper ureter. His condition has since deteriorated, with the stone enlarging to 17 mm.

3.5 The post-mortem report does not mention any anti-mortem injuries.

3.6 Neither the Applicant, nor his parents or any of his relatives ever made any demand for dowry, either before or during marriage. In such circumstances, it is wholly unreasonable to presume that any such demand would have arisen subsequently, particularly after the parties had spent a substantial period together post-marriage. Significantly, no complaint was ever lodged by the deceased, her parents, or any other family member against the Applicant or his relatives regarding any dowry demand during her lifetime. The allegations in the FIR have been made only after the death of the deceased, seemingly under external influence, with ulterior motives.

3.7 Pertinently, during the hearing of the bail application of co-accused Prableen Kaur before the ASJ, the deceased’s mother categorically admitted that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. The said fact was duly BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:22.04.2025 19:53:46 recorded in the order dated 22nd December 2023, wherein it was observed: “On being enquired by the Court, the mother of the deceased/ complainant stated that during the marriage no dowry was given.”

3.8 The Applicant was not present at the scene of the incident when the deceased committed suicide. He was at work and called the deceased around lunchtime. On learning of the incident, he rushed home, took her to the hospital, and informed her father. He remained fully cooperative.

3.9 Statements of the deceased’s parents under Section 161 Cr.P.C. differ materially from their testimonies in court, which reflect an improved version. The original statements lacked key allegations subsequently introduced in the testimonies.

3.10 The allegation of dowry demand is vague and unsubstantiated, and lacks any specific timeframe. Allegations of demand made “subsequent to marriage” do not meet the legal threshold of “soon before death”. Respondents’ Case

4. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for the State, and Mr. Aman Akhtar, Counsel for the Complainant, strongly oppose the request. Mr. Ahlawat contends that the allegations levelled against the Applicant involve the serious offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, a charge that carries a presumption of culpability against the husband and his relatives where the death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage under suspicious circumstances. It is submitted that the material on record, including the testimonies of the deceased’s parents, indicate that the deceased was subjected to sustained harassment, both physical and emotional, by the Applicant and co-accused, Prableen Kaur. The nature of abuse was not limited to dowry demands, but extended to personal humiliation and denial of marital rights, as alleged in the statements Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:22.04.2025 19:53:46 BAIL APPLN. 2971/2024 Page 5 of 14 recorded before the Executive Magistrate and in Court. Further, Mr. Ahlawat highlights the content of WhatsApp chats retrieved from the Applicant’s mobile phone, which contains vulgar and derogatory remarks made against the deceased. These communications lend prima facie support to the Prosecution’s contention of persistent cruelty.

5. Mr. Aman Akhtar, counsel for the Complainant, adds that the parents of the deceased have consistently reiterated the allegation of unlawful demands made soon before the death of the deceased. He argues that the Applicant’s conduct points not only to domestic cruelty, but also to a potential motive tied to his extra-marital involvement. He asserts that granting bail at this stage would not only undermine the gravity of the charge, but may also embolden the Applicant to influence or intimidate key Prosecution witnesses. Both counsel stress that the seriousness of the offence, the nature of evidence available, and the possibility of interference with the trial process strongly weigh against the grant of bail. They urge the Court to consider the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which squarely applies in this case, and to deny the Applicant the relief sought. Analysis

6. The Applicant has been charged under Sections 498A/304-B/34 IPC, and alternatively under Sections 306/34 IPC. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304B IPC, as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab,5 and consistently reaffirmed in a catena of judgments,6 are as follows: “9. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B IPC have been stated and restated in many judgments. There are four such ingredients