In a recent judgment of Karanjeet Singh v/s State Of NCT Of Delhi, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an applicant accused in a dowry death case, emphasizing the critical legal interpretation of "soon before death" in dowry-related cruelty allegations. The ruling, delivered in an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 Cr.P.C.), pertains to FIR No. 750/2023 registered under Sections 498A/304B/34, and alternatively 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Tragic Incident and Initial Allegations:

The case revolves around the death of Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, 24, who was found dead on November 29, 2023, due to alleged hanging at her matrimonial home in Krishna Nagar, Delhi, less than a year after her marriage on December 12, 2022, to the applicant, Karanjeet Singh.

Following the incident, Gurpreet Kaur was declared "brought dead" at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. The police investigation revealed a multicoloured chunni, allegedly used for hanging, which had been removed from the ceiling fan and placed in a cupboard by the applicant's sister-in-law, Prableen Kaur.

Due to the death occurring within seven years of marriage, an inquest was held by the SDM, Vivek Vihar. Gurpreet's parents subsequently alleged physical and mental abuse, dowry demands (including a car), non-consummation of marriage, and an illicit relationship between the applicant and Prableen Kaur. These allegations led to the registration of the FIR and the arrest of Karanjeet Singh, Prableen Kaur, and other relatives.

Prosecution's Stance vs. Applicant's Defense:

The prosecution vigorously opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations constituted a serious dowry death offense (Section 304B IPC), which carries a statutory presumption of culpability against the husband and his relatives under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. They cited sustained harassment, personal humiliation, denial of marital rights, and vulgar WhatsApp chats between the applicant and Prableen Kaur as evidence of cruelty. The complainant's counsel further suggested a potential motive linked to the alleged extra-marital involvement.

The applicant, through his counsel, sought bail on several grounds: innocence and false implication, completion of investigation and chargesheet filing, over a year of incarceration as an undertrial with a lengthy trial anticipated, and the principle of parity as a co-accused had already been granted bail. Additionally, the applicant highlighted a deteriorating medical condition (kidney stone requiring surgery), the absence of ante-mortem injuries in the post-mortem report, and a categorical admission by the deceased's mother that no dowry was given at the time of marriage. The applicant also asserted he was not present at the scene during the incident and cooperated with authorities.

Court's Scrutiny: The 'Soon Before Death' Conundrum

The High Court meticulously analyzed the foundational requirements for an offense under Section 304B IPC, particularly the crucial element of cruelty or harassment occurring "soon before death" and its "proximate and live link" to the demise.

The court noted significant ambiguities in the prosecution's material. Crucially, there was no contemporaneous complaint of dowry harassment by the deceased or her family during her lifetime. The allegations of dowry demand, specifically for a car, surfaced only in post-incident statements, lacking specific details regarding date, time, or frequency. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments in Satbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, which emphasize the necessity of a "proximate and live link" between cruelty and death, stating that "soon before" is a relative term dependent on case specifics.

Furthermore, the court observed that the deceased's mother, in her testimony, admitted to frequent family visits and joint celebrations with the applicant's family, including a birthday celebration just two days before the incident, suggesting civil, if not cordial, relations until very shortly before the death. This prima facie undermined the "immediate or proximate instance" of dowry-related cruelty required by Section 304B IPC.

Regarding the allegations of an illicit relationship and abusive WhatsApp chats, the court clarified that while such conduct might carry moral weight, it does not, standing alone, fulfill the specific ingredients of cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand to attract Section 304B IPC. The court cited Parul v. State (NCT of Delhi) and K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka, which held that an extra-marital relationship per se does not amount to mental cruelty sufficient for Sections 498A or 306 IPC without a direct link to dowry demands or clear instigation of suicide.

Abetment of Suicide and Bail Conditions:

For the alternative charge under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide), the court reiterated the high and precise threshold required. It noted that neither the complainant nor the prosecution alleged direct instigation or sustained cruelty of a nature that would drive the deceased to commit suicide. The court, referencing Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, stressed that "instigation" requires a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence, and mere words uttered in anger without intending consequences are not sufficient.

Considering that the applicant had been in judicial custody for over a year, the investigation was complete, and the trial was likely to be protracted, the court deemed continued incarceration unwarranted. The court also took note that other relatives had been discharged, and a co-accused facing identical charges had already been granted bail.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant's release on a personal bond of INR 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to standard conditions including not leaving the country without permission, maintaining contact with the IO, and refraining from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of the bail application and should not influence the trial's outcome.

Section 483, BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA - 2023  

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023  

Section 304B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860