"Object of Jail neither Punitive nor Preventive; it is only to secure accused's appearance": Delhi HC grants bail to man in alleged Dowry death case

The Delhi High Court on Monday observed that the object of jail is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty cannot be considered as punishment.

A vacation bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “The object of Jail is to secure the appearance of the accused persons during the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive and the deprivation of liberty has been considered as a punishment. The applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The presence of the accused can be secured at the time of trial by putting appropriate conditions.”

The single-judge bench was hearing a regular bail plea in an FIR registered under Sections 204B, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was registered on a complaint by Naveen Kumar, brother of the deceased, alleging that his sister who was married to one Susheel Kumar was a victim of dowry death.

The marriage was solemnized between the couple in 2014, and first child born out of the wedlock was in August 2017. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the deceased wife in the Crime against Woman Cell on September 18, 2019. Additionally, an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was also filed by the deceased wife on September 24, 2018 against Susheel.

The disputes between the couple got settled in January 2020, and they started living together again, and the second child was born in December 2020. Thereafter, on April 1, 2020, the deceased wife was found hanging by the fan and the two children were found in an unconscious state in the bathroom. Subsequently, the brother of the deceased Naveen filed a complaint against Susheel and he got arrested in April 2021 and was in custody since then.

The counsel for Susheel contended that the investigation is complete and charges under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband) and 304B (dowry death) of Indian Penal Code had also been framed in June 2021. He submitted that the trial is being delayed at the instance of the family of the deceased and is not likely to be over in the near future. He also stated that the only allegation is of demand made by him after the birth of the second child, and argued that the same did not fall under the category of dowry.

On the contrary, opposing the bail plea the counsel for the State contended that the investigation clearly showed that the deceased was subjected to torture and cruelty in connection with dowry demand. She further argued that the autopsy indicated that she was subjected to cruelty and that the injuries found on her body were inflicted during the last six days of her life.

To this, the court noted that the allegation of dowry demand was sought to be corroborated on the basis of a complaint filed by the deceased in 2018, however, the said complaint and application filed under the Domestic Violence Act was settled in the year 2020, and a child was born after the said settlement.

The court also noted that: “The only other allegation in respect of demand of dowry made by the family of the deceased is that the money was demanded by the applicant and his family after the birth of their second child. Whether such alleged demand falls within the definition of ‘demand of dowry’, and the nature of demand will be tested in trial”.

Noting that Susheel had spent more than 600 days in judicial custody, and the investigation was complete and charge sheet had been filed, the court opined that there was no chance that he will abscond or flee if released on bail.

Accordingly, the court granted bail to Susheel on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1 lakhs with two sureties of like amount and clarified, “the observations made in the present case are only for the purpose of considering the bail application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

Case Title: Susheel Kumar Arya v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi