The court emphasized that granting bail in dowry death cases undermines public confidence in justice and violates the legislative intent behind IPC sections pertaining to dowry-related offenses.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

1. By virtue of the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Hereinafter ‘ BNSS read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in proceedings arising out of FIR No.176/2021 dated 18.06.2021 registered under Sections 302 /304B/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter ‘ IPC at PS: Maidan Garhi, Delhi.

2. As per FIR, the deceased daughter of the complainant, Hereinafter ‘deceased after marriage with the applicant as per Hindu rites and customs on 26.04.2021 was residing with him at Plot No.10, Gali No.1, Asola Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi. Though to fulfil the dowry demands of the applicant and his family, Hereinafter ‘in-laws the complainant gave numerous articles, however, the deceased was harassed by her in-laws after marriage. So much so, she was even threatened to kill her for not bringing dowry and was not allowed speaking to the complainant. It was only after making repeated calls to the applicant that he brought the deceased to the complainant’s residence in Uttarakhand, but once again made demands for a car and/ or cash by selling one bigha of his land. Upon refusal, the applicant took the deceased back to Delhi on 16.06.2021, telling the complainant that he will not be able to meet his daughter again.

3. On 17.06.2021 at 09:00 AM, the complainant received a phone call from his relative informing him that the deceased had been killed by the applicant, his parents and his brother. Pursuant to a PCR call, the ASI arrived at the house of the applicant to discover the deceased’s body, where after, a post-mortem was conducted at the AIIMS Hospital. An FIR was accordingly registered against the applicant, his parents and his brother.

4. All the accused were arrested and taken under judicial custody on the very same day of registration of the FIR. Thereafter, charge-sheet has also been filed under Sections 302 /304B/498A/34 IPC .

5. After rejection of the first Bail Application by this Court, Special Leave Petition there against was also dismissed. Hence, the present second Bail Application by the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset, seeks to rely upon the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.33242/2025 whereby liberty was granted to the applicant to repeat his prayer for bail before this Court, if the trial did not conclude within the next four months. Based thereon, and since more than the said period of four months has lapsed, and till now only 14 of the 33 witnesses of the prosecution have been examined, and the applicant is facing incarceration since over 4½ years, he seeks grant of bail.

7. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant has no previous antecedents and there were no prior incidents of violence/ quarrels reported between the applicant and the deceased prior to the incident, and the allegations qua demands for dowry are wholly baseless, being false and fictitious. In fact, as per him, the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel between the applicant and the deceased after the applicant was under the influence of a large quantity of alcohol.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that there are several contradictions in the statements, especially in the cross-examination of the witnesses already examined. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, residing permanently at his recorded address, and would have no chances of tampering with the evidence, particularly since the