Being Elderly Or Infirm Doesn't Automatically Entitle A Woman Directly Involved In Offence To Anticipatory Bail: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that merely being elderly or infirm does not entitle a woman to be released on anticipatory bail. Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while denying pre-arrest bail to a mother-in-law in a dowry death case concerning her daughter-in-law. “In this case, where the applicant is alleged to be directly involved in the incessant demands of dowry...
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that merely being elderly or infirm does not entitle a woman to be released on anticipatory bail.
Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while denying pre-arrest bail to a mother-in-law in a dowry death case concerning her daughter-in-law.
“In this case, where the applicant is alleged to be directly involved in the incessant demands of dowry and harassment of the deceased, the mere fact of being an elderly woman or infirm does not automatically entitle her to pre-arrest bail,” the court observed.
The FIR was registered by the deceased's mother under Section 498A (cruelty), 304B (dowry death) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was registered against the husband and his family members.
It was alleged that the accused persons, shortly after five months of marriage, were harassing the deceased for dowry and was also beating her. The information about deceased's death was given to her mother by the father in law, co accused in the case.
Justice Mahajan noted that while dismissing the bail application of the father in law, it was observed that the deceased died under unnatural circumstances within three years of her marriage to his son.
“This fact raises a statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, the applicant has been specifically accused of harassing the deceased soon after her marriage, allegedly in connection with dowry demands, which eventually led to her tragic death,” the court said.
While denying anticipatory bail to the woman, the court said that it cannot be held, at this stage, that the investigation was being carried out with the intention to injure or humiliate the accused persons.
“While the benefit of proviso to Section 437 of the CrPC, which allows for leniency in granting bail to a woman, sick, or infirm, is recognized under certain circumstances, this benefit cannot be extended at the stage of pre-arrest bail. The applicant is accused of having a role similar to that of her husband/co- accused, whose pre-arrest bail has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court,” the court said.
Title: SUSHMA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1083