Even as the Supreme Court has repeatedly urged society, particularly younger generations, to internalise equality, dignity, and mutual respect within marriage, a Delhi court has refused bail to a man accused of driving his wife to suicide within four months of their wedding, holding that the case reveals a disturbing pattern of cruelty and dowry-related harassment.
Dismissing the bail of the husband, Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi held that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that Brij Mohan had committed offences punishable under Sections 80 (dowry death), 85 (cruelty by husband or relatives) and 108 (abetment of suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Supreme Court’s emphasis on equality in marriage
The court’s ruling comes against the backdrop of recent observations by the Supreme Court of India, which has underlined that marriage is not a site of dominance or entitlement, but a relationship anchored in equality, respect and shared responsibility. Courts across the country, the apex court has said, must remain alive to the structural vulnerabilities faced by women within matrimonial homes, particularly in cases involving allegations of dowry and domestic cruelty.
Reena, who married Brij Mohan on March 2, 2025, was found dead at her parental home in Malviya Nagar on July 19, 2025. A handwritten suicide note recovered from the scene explicitly named her husband and sister-in-law, stating that their conduct left her with no choice but to end her life. The post-mortem conducted at AIIMS confirmed death by ante-mortem hanging.
Allegations of dowry demands and sustained cruelty
An FIR was registered on the complaint of Reena’s father, who alleged that soon after marriage, his daughter was subjected to taunts over her socio-economic background, repeated dowry demands, physical assault and restrictions on her mobility, including the use of a mobile phone. Statements recorded during the investigation, including that of Reena’s mother, pointed to a sustained pattern of cruelty and humiliation, the court noted.
Rejecting the defence argument that Reena was unwilling to continue the marriage and had allegedly developed a relationship with the applicant’s younger brother, the court said such assertions, apart from being unsubstantiated, bordered on character assassination of a deceased woman who was no longer alive to defend herself.
“Even presuming such a defence, it would not give carte blanche to the husband to seek bail when his lawfully wedded wife has died an unnatural death under a cloud of dowry demands and cruelty,” the court observed.
Significantly, the judge invoked settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on dowry deaths, reiterating that the phrase “soon before her death” cannot be read in a narrow or hyper-technical manner. Relying on apex court precedents, the sessions court held that the law requires a “live and proximate link” between cruelty and death, not immediate temporal proximity.
“In cases like the present, where the death occurs within months of marriage and is preceded by consistent allegations of harassment, the statutory presumptions under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act are clearly attracted,” the order said.
Conduct of accused raises concern
The court also flagged concerns about the conduct of the accused. Brij Mohan was initially granted bail by a magistrate a day after his arrest, but that order was later set aside in revision by a sessions court. Despite the cancellation, he surrendered only after several weeks, a delay that, according to the prosecution, suggested attempts to evade the process of law.
Given that the investigation is still at a crucial stage, the court said the risk of witness intimidation or evidence tampering could not be ruled out. “The overall desirability of releasing the accused at this stage is on a lower threshold,” the judge noted, citing recent Supreme Court guidance cautioning courts against granting bail in serious offences involving vulnerable victims.
While emphasising that bail proceedings should not become a mini-trial, the court concluded that the gravity of the allegations, the suicide note, medical evidence and witness statements together constituted a strong prima facie case against the accused.
The bail application was accordingly dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations were limited to the purpose of bail and would not prejudice the trial.
The ruling serves as a stark reminder that judicial calls for equality and dignity in marriage are not abstract ideals, but legal principles that acquire concrete meaning when courts confront cases where marital power imbalances turn fatal.