Extra Marital Affair Of Husband Or Him Being Involved In Betting Cannot Be Grounds For Dowry Death U/s. 304B IPC: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that extra marital affair of husband or him being into betting cannot be grounds for implicating him under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) i.e., Dowry Death.
The Court held this in a bail application filed by the husband of the deceased under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) who sought bail in FIR under Sections 304B/34 IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed, “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. … 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.”
The Bench said that the deceased woman was under treatment for anxiety and depression and the demand of dowry was not stated to be a stressor or trigger for her medical issues, as shared by her with the treating doctor.
Senior Advocate J.P. Sengh appeared on behalf of the petitioner while APP Aashneet Singh appeared on behalf of the respondent.
In this case, the version of the prosecution was that the deceased was married to the petitioner in 2020 and the petitioner had misrepresented to the deceased that he was a law graduate and practising lawyer. Subsequently, the deceased came to know that the petitioner was having an extra marital affair and was into betting. The relation of the deceased with the petitioner thus, became strained.
The deceased, therefore, filed some cases against the petitioner – (i) a petition under Section 125 CrPC; (ii) a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (‘DV Act’); (iii) an FIR under Section 498A/406/34 IPC; and (iv) a Divorce Petition. In 2022, the deceased committed suicide, which led to the registration of an FIR under Section 304B/34 IPC on a complaint made by the father of the deceased.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “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 the death of married woman under Section 304B IPC.”
The Court said that the investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, and the custody of the petitioner is no more required, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bar.
“Insofar as the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner may influence the material witnesses, suffice it to say that the material witnesses are the family members of the deceased and further strict conditions can be imposed to allay the apprehension of the complainant’s counsel. … Considering the aforesaid facts in entirety, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail”, concluded the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and disposed of the petition.
Cause Title- Parul v. NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6481)
