The court emphasized the victim's right to justice over the accused's right to bail, confirming that evidence presented established prima facie grounds for dowry harassment leading to suicide.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 83/2024, registered at Police Station Jaitpur, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304B/498A of Indian Penal Code. 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’).

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 06.02.2024, upon receiving information vide DD No. 06A regarding the suicide of the applicant's wife, the police reached the spot and found the deceased, Mohini, aged 18 years, wife of the present applicant Ajay Kumar, hanging from a ceiling fan. The deceased had got married to the applicant on 21.05.2023. The statement of the father of the deceased was recorded. A post-mortem was conducted, and it was opined that the cause of death was 'asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging'. It was further alleged by the complainant, i.e., the father of the deceased, that the applicant used to frequently quarrel with the deceased due to dissatisfaction with the dowry brought by her, and had been persistently demanding a motorcycle and a gold chain. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint made by the father of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the deceased was subjected to mental and physical harassment for dowry. On 05.02.2024, at about 09:00 PM, the deceased had made a video call to her father. During the call, the deceased was seen fighting with the applicant over the alleged non-fulfilment of dowry demands. The complainant stated that he tried to pacify the situation before going to sleep. However, around 03:00 AM, he received a call that his daughter had committed suicide.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argues that the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period during the pendency of trial. It is further submitted that the post-mortem report reflects no external injuries on the body of the deceased, thereby suggesting that the applicant was not involved in any physical abuse leading to the incident. It is also contended that the prosecution's case is doubtful, as there is no credible evidence to indicate that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry 'soon before her death', as required under Section 304B of IPC. The learned counsel argues that occasional disagreements between a married couple are not uncommon and cannot be elevated to the level of cruelty or dowry harassment under the law. It is further submitted that the present case relies solely on the statements of the parents of the deceased, who reside in Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, and were not in proximity to the deceased to be aware of the daily dynamics of her matrimonial life. The learned counsel also contends that the absence of any ante- mortem injuries corroborates the defence that this was a case of suicide, not abetted or caused by harassment. It is further stated in the bail application that the deceased was in a prior romantic relationship and was allegedly forced into marrying the applicant, which led to her sadness and depression. It is argued that she had made prior suicide attempts as well, but the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has failed to investigate these previous incidents. The learned counsel also submits that no specific date or time has been mentioned in the FIR regarding any demand for dowry, and therefore, th