The Delhi High Court, on Monday, granted bail to a man who was being prosecuted under Sections 302 (murder), 498A (cruelty), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC in relation to his wife’s death.

The court arrived at its conclusion by considering several factors. It noted that the petitioner had already spent 2.5 years in custody, all essential witnesses had been examined, and additionally, the petitioner had remarried, with his new wife expecting a child.

Significantly, the initial FIR lodged against the petitioner was under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) when his wife was pronounced brought dead at GTB Hospital. The Medical Legal Case (MLC) indicated the presence of ligature marks on the deceased's neck.

The complainant, who was the deceased’s adoptive father and lived with the petitioner, deceased, and their children, alleged that the petitioner demanded money. The deceased's biological father provided a statement under Section 161 CrPC, mentioning that after the marriage, his daughter (the deceased) would visit and complain about the petitioner's financial torture. In a Section 164 CrPC statement, the deceased's daughter stated overhearing the petitioner threaten her mother on the day of the incident, saying he would kill her. Additionally, the son stated witnessing the petitioner strangling his mother.

The petitioner's counsel emphasized that a chargesheet had been filed, supporting the petitioner's case. They sought to discredit the children's statements, highlighting that these were recorded 46 days after the incident, during which time the children were in the custody of their maternal grandparents. Additionally, they mentioned that no complaints regarding cruelty or dowry demands had been made against the petitioner.

In its assessment, the court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of UP v. Amarmani Tripathi, highlighting factors relevant to granting bail. These factors encompassed considerations such as whether there existed prima facie or reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed the offense, the risk of the accused fleeing if granted bail, and the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering. Given that the petitioner’s children had been residing with their maternal grandparents since their mother's death, the court expressed concerns that tutoring could not be dismissed outright.

On the basis of Modi’s “A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology”, a distinction was drawn between suicidal death and homicidal death due asphyxia. It was considered that in the postmortem report, the doctor had not opined that the death had occurred on account of strangulation.

Perusing testimony of the deceased’s biological father, Justice Vikas Mahajan said:

“PW-1, though in his examination in chief has stated that his daughter used to tell him that the petitioner would demand Rs. 5 lacs from her for purchasing a plot but in his cross examination he has feigned ignorance as to the date when the said demand was made by the petitioner.”

The court observed discrepancies in the testimony of the deceased's adoptive father regarding the petitioner's alleged demand for Rs. 5 lakhs, noting an improvement from what was initially stated to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Opining that at the stage of bail, it could not shut its eyes to the gaps in evidence, the court left the probative value of evidence placed on record and the credibility of the witnesses to be determined by the trial court.

Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate appeared for petitioner

Ms. Rupali Bandhopadya, ASC appeared for State

Case Title - Rihan v. The State (GNCTD)

Click here to Read/download the Judgement