Recently, the Delhi High Court denied bail to a man accused of abetting the suicide of his 18-year-old wife, who was three months pregnant at the time of her death. The Court, while dealing with the matter under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC, noted that “the voice of the deceased, now silenced forever, can only be heard through the evidence brought forth by her parents.”
The case pertained to the death of a young woman who had been married for less than nine months. According to the prosecution, she was driven to suicide due to persistent dowry demands made by her husband and in-laws. She ended her life while carrying a three-month-old fetus. Her body was brought to the hospital with injuries that the initial MLC noted, while her grieving parents alleged she was consistently harassed and mentally tortured during her short-lived marriage.
The counsel for the applicant argued that no specific date or time of dowry demand was mentioned and emphasized that the trial was still underway, with prosecution witnesses yet to be fully examined. The applicant also contended that the deceased was emotionally disturbed, previously attempted suicide, and was allegedly in a relationship with her cousin. It was further argued that he had been in custody since February 2024, and the trial would take a long time to conclude.
The Court found the arguments unconvincing at this stage of the proceedings. It observed that the absence of precise dates regarding dowry demands did not negate the consistent pattern of harassment alleged by the prosecution. The Court highlighted that “the very short-lived marriage ending in suicide would, in any case, have caused deep psychological and emotional trauma to the parents.” The Court placed weight on the testimonies of the deceased's parents and noted that post-mortem findings corroborated their statements about the pregnancy.
Importantly, addressing the defense’s claim that the parents lacked knowledge of their daughter's suffering due to her being married and living elsewhere, the Court underscored, “In India, the love and affection of parents for their daughters does not cease once the daughter's life becomes tied with another family or man. They remain emotionally and deeply connected to their daughters even after marriage. Parents, after marrying their daughters into another family, do not disown or distance themselves from them, their daughters continue to live in their hearts. To even presume that parents, merely because they married their daughter into another city, would not know about her life or would become strangers in the social context, is a flawed and unrealistic argument in itself,” the Court said.
The Court further held that posthumous character assassination of the deceased, who could no longer defend herself, was not only unfair but unsupported by any substantive record. It emphasized that if the alleged past suicide attempts were true, the applicant failed to report the same to the authorities or the deceased's family during her lifetime, which casts doubt on the credibility of such claims.
After reviewing the testimonies, the sequence of events, and the evidence presented, the Court held that the prosecution’s case prima facie disclosed ingredients attracting the alleged offences. The High Court concluded that “the right of the victim must be given due regard” and accordingly dismissed the bail application. The Court clarified that its observations are solely for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail plea and shall have no bearing on the trial's merits.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar vs. State of Nct of Delhi
Case No.: Bail Appln. 1874/2025
Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Rohit Yadav, Gultash Guron, Sahil Siddiqui
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Naresh Kumar Chahar
Picture Source :
