Dowry Death Strikes At Foundations Of Dignity In Domestic Life, But No Blanket Prohibition On Grant Of Bail To Accused: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the offence of dowry death strikes at the very foundations of dignity and justice in domestic life but underscored that there is no blanket prohibition for grant of bail in such cases.“This Court remains fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of dowry deaths. Such offences strike at the foundations of dignity,...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the offence of dowry death strikes at the very foundations of dignity and justice in domestic life but underscored that there is no blanket prohibition for grant of bail in such cases.
“This Court remains fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of dowry deaths. Such offences strike at the foundations of dignity, equality, and justice in domestic life,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
The Court said that though the Supreme Court in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P. held that the grant of bail in dowry death cases must not be mechanical or perfunctory, but the ruling cannot be read as laying down a blanket prohibition against the grant of bail in every case under Section 304B of IPC.
“Rather, the Court reaffirmed that bail decisions must rest on the individual facts and circumstances of each case, the nature and weight of the evidence, and the overall context in which the allegations are situated,” the Court said.
Justice Narula made the observations while granting bail to a husband accused of causing dowry death of his wife. It was alleged that the wife was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the husband and his family and that they made dowry demands from her. He was also accused of making her live in a bedroom without a door and of being in an illicit relationship with his sister in law.
The Court said that death of a young woman within a year of marriage, under unnatural circumstances, invites serious legal scrutiny. Yet, even in such tragic cases, the Court must assess whether the evidentiary foundation laid by the prosecution aligns with the statutory requirements.
It added that prima facie, the material on record in the case revealed “significant ambiguities” and “lacked the specificity” that Section 304B IPC demands.
“The allegation of dowry demand, primarily the alleged demand for a car, finds mention only in the post-incident statements made by the family of the deceased. Pertinently, there is no contemporaneous complaint by the deceased, her parents, or any other relative during her lifetime alleging harassment or demand for dowry,” it said.
The Court also ruled that prima facie, the record did not disclose any immediate or proximate instance of dowry-related cruelty or harassment that could satisfy the threshold of “soon before her death”, thereby creating further doubt in the Prosecution's version.
“In view of the above discussion, and upon a prima facie assessment of the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, particularly with respect to the allegations under Section 304B IPC,” the Court said.
It noted that the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased wife had already been discharged, and the sister-in-law facing identical charges as the husband had been granted bail.
Title: KARANJEET SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 471