Custodial Interrogation Not Required Merely For Recovery Of Stridhan: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that custodial interrogation is not required merely for recovery of stridhan, observing that such recovery does not fall within the domain of the bail court and the complainant would have to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while granting anticipatory bail to a 80-year-old man accused in...
The Delhi High Court has held that custodial interrogation is not required merely for recovery of stridhan, observing that such recovery does not fall within the domain of the bail court and the complainant would have to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while granting anticipatory bail to a 80-year-old man accused in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations under Sections 354, 354A, 376, 498A and 406 of IPC and Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The prosecution had submitted that custodial interrogation of the man was required, with the only purpose cited being recovery of stridhan.
On this, the Court said: “I find no hesitation to hold that the IO does not need the accused/applicant to join the investigation. As regards the issue of custodial interrogation also, the only purpose mentioned is the recovery of stridhan. But for that, custodial interrogation is certainly not a requisite.”
It also observed that the issue of recovery of stridhan could not be addressed by the bail court.
“As regards the allegation of non-return of stridhan, it does not fall within the domain of the bail court to get the same recovered. Admittedly, till date no appropriate proceedings in accordance with law have been initiated by complainant de facto for recovery of her stridhan,” the Court said while
It noted that, admittedly, no appropriate proceedings were initiated by the complainant for recovery of her stridhan.
The State had opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that despite notices, the accused had not joined the investigation even during the period when he was protected from arrest.
However, when the Court asked the Investigating Officer concerned to produce the notices, to which the IO stated that the notices were issued only verbally.
The Court observed that such an exercise by the investigator “fails to inspire confidence” and also noted that no case diary recording the alleged verbal notices had been produced.
“I find no hesitation to hold that the IO does not need the accused/applicant to join the investigation,” the Court held.
The FIR was initially registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC. Sections 354, 354A and 376 of IPC and Section 74 BNS were subsequently added.
The sexual misconduct allegations were against the accused, who was the father-in-law of the complainant. The allegations included that he had sexually harassed her on various occasions, attempted to make physical relations with her and, on one occasion, allegedly pushed her onto a bed and made physical relations with her.
The Court noted that the alleged incidents had taken place in May 2022 or earlier, whereas the FIR was lodged in April. It further noted that no specific dates were mentioned in the FIR.
The Court also considered family photographs produced with the bail plea, and said that they depicted the accused, the complainant and their child as a happy family.
“Of course, I must also add a cautious rider that these aspects have been observed only for the limited purposes of anticipatory bail and the final view shall be taken by the trial court on the basis of evidence adduced,” the Court said.
At the same time, Justice Kathpalia stressed that courts cannot generalise that allegations of sexual misconduct in matrimonial cases are false.
“Not all cases alleging sexual misconduct in matrimonial FIRs are false and not all cases so alleging are true. With this understanding, I have examined the present case,” the Court said.
It further considered the dispute concerning the custody of the complainant's three-year-old child. It noted that an Ontario Court of Justice had granted custody of the child to the complainant's husband and that the order was challenged before a superior court.
The Court observed that its earlier concern regarding the child's welfare could not justify keeping the anticipatory bail application pending indefinitely.
It further stressed that custody is a matter of the child's welfare and not a matter of rights between warring spouses.
“The proper perspective is that it is the child who has right to co-parenting through both parents,” the Court said.
Finding no reason to deprive the accused of his liberty, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea.
It directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like amount.
Title: HARCHARAN SINGH BHALLA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI