Delhi HC Denies Bail to Man Who Shot Wife, Calls Domestic Violence an Aggravated Offence

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man accused of shooting his wife, emphasizing that offences of domestic violence involving an intent to kill must be treated with utmost seriousness.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma delivered the ruling on a plea filed by the accused seeking regular bail in a case registered after his brother-in-law alleged that he had shot his wife, Pinki. The accused was booked under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Pinki, employed as a security guard at Lady Hardinge Kalawati Hospital, had separated from her husband after discovering his criminal background and violent behaviour. He had previously been jailed in 2015. On November 24, 2018, while she was on duty, the accused approached her at around 5:40 PM, asking her to accompany him. Pinki refused.

Later, at around 10:00 PM, after finishing her duty, Pinki encountered him again near the hospital gate. He allegedly forced her towards an auto, insisting he only wanted to talk. Once she was inside, he pulled out a country made pistol and shot her in the abdomen before fleeing the spot.

Appearing for the State, the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the allegations were extremely serious. Pinki had stated that her husband regularly beat her after consuming alcohol, and his repeated criminal activities and prior jail terms had made her fear for her life.

On the other hand, the petitioner’s counsel argued that this was a fit case for bail since charges had already been framed and substantial evidence recorded. He contended that the act was not premeditated but committed in the heat of passion, as Pinki had refused to return to the matrimonial home.

He further argued that firing only one shot, after first speaking to her, indicated anger rather than an intent to kill, and therefore the case fell under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) rather than Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).

Rejecting these submissions, the Court observed that Pinki had left her husband due to his violent conduct, criminal activities, repeated incarcerations, and the fact that he had contracted AIDS. Her refusal to live with him could not be construed as provocation sufficient to justify such an attack.

“Thus, in the present case, the assertion by the wife of refusing to return to a violent matrimonial home has been met with extreme violence of being shot at, which required her admission in hospital for a month and four surgeries,” the Court noted.

The bench further held that accepting the plea of “spur of the moment anger” would amount to legitimising patriarchal entitlement, which reduces women to subservience, treating even their refusal to return to a violent matrimonial home as provocation. Such a view, the Court said, would be regressive and contrary to the intent of the law.

“Offences of domestic violence of this nature, where the intention is to kill, are to be viewed with seriousness. In such cases, the marital relationship must be treated as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one,” the Court stated.

Taking into account that the trial was nearing conclusion, with 24 of 32 witnesses already examined, most of whom supported the prosecution’s case, along with corroborative CCTV footage and the accused’s criminal antecedents, the Court held that the gravity of the offence ruled out the grant of bail.

The trial court was directed to conclude proceedings within six months, noting that the accused has already been in judicial custody for about six years.

With these directions and observations, the bail plea was dismissed.

Case Title: Sushant Raj v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Date of Judgment: August 18, 2025

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma