No blanket ban on bail in dowry death cases: Delhi HC
The court noted, while the Supreme Court in the Shabeen Ahmad v State of UP stated that bail should not be granted mechanically in dowry death cases, the verdict cannot be taken to mean that bail must be denied in all cases under Section 304B of the IPC. 'Rather, the court reaffirmed that bail decisions must rest on individual facts and circumstances of each case, nature and weight of evidence, and the overall context in which allegations are situated,' the court said.
The remarks came while granting bail to a man accused in dowry death of his wife. The woman had allegedly suffered both physical and mental abuse at the hands of her husband and his family. Her relatives claimed she was forced to stay in a room without a door, also alleging that dowry demands were made.
The court noted, at first glance, the material on record 'lacked specificity' required under Section 304B. 'There is no complaint by the deceased, her parents, or any other relative during her lifetime alleging harassment or demand for dowry,' the court said in its April 22 order.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Porsche hit-and-run: Defence challenges blood sample tampering charges, cite lack of evidence
The defence counsel representing the accused in the May 19 Porsche hit-and-run case, that led to the death of two IT professionals, strongly contested the draft charges filed against their clients, asserting that there is no credible evidence linking them to the alleged tampering of blood samples of the minor accused. The prosecution has stated that the minor's blood was replaced with his mother's to conceal his intoxicated state at the time of the accident. (HT) Appearing before district judge and additional sessions judge K P Kshirsagar, advocate Shivam Nimbalkar argued that the prosecution has failed to present any material in the charge sheet that indicates his client had knowledge of or played any active role in the alleged manipulation of the minor's blood samples. 'There is no evidence to show that he was involved in labeling, replacing, or facilitating the exchange of blood samples,' Nimbalkar stated, emphasising that mere association or presence does not establish culpability under law. Similarly, the legal counsel for the mother of the minor refuted the allegations leveled against her, stating that there is neither factual basis nor documentary evidence to support claims that she was aware of any blood sample exchange or that she participated in any meeting where such a conspiracy was discussed. The defence maintained that the prosecution's claim is speculative and unsupported by concrete proof. 'There is no evidence or any direct indication that my client was involved or had any knowledge of the act,' the lawyer submitted before the court. The arguments come amidst broader allegations from the prosecution that tampering attempts were made at both Sassoon General Hospital and Aundh Government Hospital, where the minor's blood samples were collected after the crash. The prosecution has stated that the minor's blood was replaced with his mother's to conceal his intoxicated state at the time of the accident. The draft charges against the accused include serious sections under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 279 (rash driving), 338 (causing grievous hurt), 213 and 214 (bribery to screen offenders), 466 (forging public documents), 468 and 471 (forgery and use of forged documents), along with sections 109 (abetment), 34 (common intention), and 120B (criminal conspiracy). Charges under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act have also been included. The court has reserved further hearing on the matter for July 19.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
SHRC demands action as custodial violence cases highlight need for reform
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) on June 24, 2025, directed the TN government to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to V Priyadharshini, a complainant, and recover it from K Santhamoorthi for violating her human rights when he was the Inspector of C2 Race Course police station in Coimbatore. The order passed by SHRC member V Kannadasan, which directed the government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Santhamoorthi, quoted Section 58 of the Police Act, 2006, on the social responsibilities of the police. Priyadharshini had approached the police with a complaint against her father and brother of criminal intimidation and use of filthy language. Instead of conducting an impartial inquiry, the Inspector sided with the accused and intimidated her. The mandate of the police is to protect and uphold the dignity of people. Article 14 of our Constitution ensures every person the right of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises right to life, liberty and security of everyone and says, 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. The Supreme Court and the various high courts have repeatedly issued guidelines to the police on how to treat people humanely. Yet, we read and, now with the visual media, see how brutal the police force is in its day-to-day duties.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Express View on Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: Call it back
There are salient differences between Left Wing Extremism (LWE) — which has been flagged by successive governments at the Centre and in the states as a grave internal security threat — and 'urban Maoism'. The former, an insurgency against the state, has targeted security forces, government officials, civilians and politicians and invited a whole-of-government response that includes armed engagement, development work and a host of other policies and actions. The latter is a political term of relatively recent vintage that has been deployed controversially against activists, students and academics who have expressed dissent with the dominant ideology or political establishment. Disturbingly, the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, passed by the lower House, conflates the two. Its loosely defined scope and stringent provisions raise spectres of state overreach and misuse. Armed with vague and opaque definitions, it invites the danger of blurring the lines between extremist violence and non-violent dissent. The Bill fails the test established by the Supreme Court as far back as 1962 in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar. Words and ideas, no matter how critical of the government, even the state itself, do not constitute sedition or a crime unless they can be directly linked to an incitement to violence. The Bill provides for a jail term of up to seven years for 'any action' that is 'spoken or written' or 'by visual representation' that can be construed as a 'danger to peace and tranquillity' or interferes with 'maintenance of public order', and it allows for attaching the property of an accused. In this respect, it is more stringent than the most controversial sections of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Democracy, in practice, is the right to speak and write, to draw and debate, to disagree and criticise. The Constitution recognises this in its guarantees of the fundamental rights to speech and expression. The Special Public Security Act violates that promise in letter and spirit. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who tabled the Bill, said that it was needed to counter organisations that are 'brainwashing the youth'. He should have more faith in the maturity of the young. He spoke of how LWE influence is waning in the state, as in much of the 'red corridor', which, he said, is down from four districts to two blocks. Why, then, raise the bogey of 'urban Maoism'? It is difficult not to see the Bill as an attempt to arrogate more powers to the state and to help it to criminalise political-ideological opponents. The Maharashtra government must rethink the law.
