Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has said extra marital affair of a husband cannot be a ground to implicate him in a case of dowry death of the wife.

A single judge bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan made the observation, while allowing bail to the petitioner in a case in which his wife ended her life by suicide months after lodging a dowry harassment complaint against the husband.

The wife filed four separate petitions for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, under the Domestic Violence Act, dowry harassment FIR and a divorce petition. However, August 7, 2022, she ended her life by suicide, leading to lodging of an FIR for dowry death by her father.

The petitioner, who was in custody since August 24, 2022, submitted she was a patient of anxiety and depression and taking treatment for it. He also claimed she started living separately since April 19, 2021.

He said since charge sheet had already been filed, he was no longer required to be in custody as trial would take long time in view of listing of 22 witnesses.

After looking at the details of the case, the bench said, prima facie it appears that the deceased was under treatment for anxiety and depression and the demand of dowry was not stated to be a trigger for her said medical issues, as shared by her with the treating doctor.

"For invoking the offence under Section 304B IPC, not only the harassment or cruelty should be soon before death but it should be related to demand of dowry. The expression “soon before death” is a relative expression. Time lag may differ from case to case. All that is necessary that the demand of dowry should not be stale but should be a continuing cause for death of married woman under Section 304B of the IPC," the bench said.

It also noted the girl's father did not mention demand of dowry a day before the incident when he met the petitioner.

The previous FIR with regard to dowry harassment was related to the period before she left her matrimonial home, it said.

"Insofar as the extra marital affair of the petitioner, or the petitioner being into betting, is concerned, that cannot be a ground for implicating the petitioner under Section 304B IPC," the bench said.

"Apart from the seriousness of the offence, this court cannot shut its eyes to other factors which have to be considered for grant of bail. At this stage, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner. Delay in commencement and conclusion of the trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time," the bench said.

The court said the case is going to be a protracted trial as 22 witnesses have been cited.

"The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, the custody of the petitioner is no more required. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bar," the bench said.

With regard to the apprehension that the petitioner may influence the material witnesses, the court ordered him not to contact of threaten any witness or indulge in My criminal activity among conditions for his bail.

Case Title: Parul Vs. NCT Delhi

Click here to read judgment