Dismissed

Govinda Kashyap v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Delhi HC26 Sept 2024BAIL APPLN./415/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking regular bail for a male accused charged under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC. The court observed strong evidence of cruelty, including CCTV footage and witness statements, and applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail dismissed; petitioner remanded to custody pending trial.

Govinda Kashyap Vs State (Nct of Delhi) — Matrimonial and Divorce | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~188

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 415/2024, CRL.M.(BAIL) 919/2024 GOVINDA KASHYAP .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Urvashi Bhatia, Advocate. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with Insp. Ravinder Dagar, P.S. Subzi Mandi. Mr. Amit Nahata and Mr. Rajesh Mittal, Advocates for complainant.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R

¶7

% 26.09.2024

¶8

By way of the present petition filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 523/2022 dated 20.10.2022 registered under sections 498-A/406/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟) at P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

¶9

Notice on this petition was issued on 05.02.2024.

¶10

Status Report dated 06.03.2024 has been filed in the matter.

¶11

Nominal Roll dated 04.03.2024 has also been received from the Jail Superintendent, which records that as of that date, the petitioner had been in custody for about 01 year and 04 months.

¶12

The court has heard Ms. Urvashi Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; as well as Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP appearing for the State at considerable length. Mr. Amit Nahata learned counsel appearing for the complainant, namely Kamlesh, mother of the deceased, has also made brief submissions in the matter.

¶13

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 1 of 8

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶16

Ms. Bhatia appearing for the petitioner submits, that the allegations in the subject FIR that the petitioner (husband) had made dowry demands upon the deceased (his wife) are very generic in nature; and do not contain any averments to show that the petitioner had inflicted cruelty on his wife in relation to the alleged dowry demands immediately before she died by suicide. Counsel submits, that the only specific allegation against the petitioner is that a scuffle had taken place between the couple on 19.10.2022; but even that scuffle is stated to have happened over a petty issue of serving of food , as is seen from the statements of ASI Sunderpal and W/HC Khushboo, copies of which are appended to the petition. Counsel also refers to MLC dated 19.10.2022 of the deceased, which show that the injuries on the deceased were opined as being „simple‟ in nature.

¶17

To impress upon the court the dubiousness of the allegations in the subject FIR, Ms. Bhatia also places reliance on the CCTV footage of the premises on the intervening night between 19.10.2022 and 20.10.2022, to point-out that in the footage, the petitioner and his wife can be seen peacefully retiring to their respective rooms in the house; and thereafter, the wife is seen locking herself in her room, while the husband locks himself in his room, separated by a landing in the stairwell; and thereafter the wife is found hanging in her room, with nothing to show any intervention by the husband.

¶18

Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the CDRs annexed to chargesheet dated 16.01.2023, which show that shortly before her hanging herself on 20.10.2022, the petitioner‟s wife had a long

¶19

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 2 of 8

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶22

conversation with her mother and brother from about 5:51 am to 6:31 a.m., which reflects that she was in a normal state of mind.

¶23

Thus, counsel submits, the allegations that the petitioner had made dowry demands, or that he had inflicted any cruelty on the wife in relation to dowry demands, is not substantiated.

¶24

On the other hand, Mr. Utkarsh, learned APP appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the petitioner‟s plea seeking regular bail, contending that though the petitioner‟s wife died by suicide, such a drastic step was taken by her only due to the incessant harassment and cruelty she faced at the hands of the petitioner, especially in respect of his demands for dowry. In this context, learned APP has drawn attention of this court to the statement of PW-1, mother of the deceased wife, who has categorically deposed in court that her daughter was being harassed by the petitioner and his family. The relevant extracts of PW-1‟s deposition read as follows:

¶25

“… … The accused Govinda used to beat my daughter Jyoti and used to abused her. The accused used to tell my daughter Jyoti to bring money from her parental house as he had to purchase property … … The mother and sister of accused Govinda used to taunt my daughter Jyoti for dowry. We had given money to accused Govinda. Once Rs. 8 Lakhs and once Rs. 20,000/- to accused Govinda. … … My husband had also transferred amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs in the account of sister of accused Govinda, however, I do not remember the name of the said lady … …

¶26

“On the next morning, my daughter Jyoti made call to me and stated that "Mera sara mooh chira hua hai aur mere halak se paani tak nahi satka ja raha. Mummy mere bohot dard ho raha hai, mummy tum kabh aaoge, mujhe itna mare, mujhe dard ho raha hai" (witness made gesture with her hands towards her mouth to show how injury was caused on the mouth of her daughter)… … The

¶27

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 3 of 8

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶30

mother of accused Gonvida used to taunt my daughter Jyoti by saying "Tere baap ne dahej mein kuch nahi diya, khana tak nahi diya"”

¶31

(emphasis supplied) Mr. Utkarsh also relies on the statement of PW-2, brother of the deceased, who has stated in court that his sister was being constantly harassed at the hands of the petitioner in the context of his demands for dowry. The relevant extracts of PW-2‟s deposition read as follows:

¶32

Statement dated 26.10.2023

¶33

“… …After her examinations, on the day of Raksha Bandhan festival, the accused Govinda with his cousin brother came to our house. "Govinda ne bhot khushamat kari ki aaj k baad na tumahri beti ko marunga, na hath lagaunga or na dahej k lie kuch kahunga". We were not inclined to send Jyoti with him, however, after the request and assurance given by the accused Govinda, we sent Jyoti alongwith him to her matrimonial house.

¶34

Statement dated 03.11.2023

¶35

“… … On the next morning, I woke up at about 5-6 a.m and at that time, my mother was talking to my sister Jyoti on phone. My sister told my mother that "Govinda ne mujhe khached khached ke maara hai aur chutiya pakad kar bhi maara hai, mere muh mein ungli daalkar mera, mera muh bhi phaada hai, aap aa nahin rahi, aapne kaha tha subah he aa jaaonga." … … ”

¶36

(emphasis supplied)

¶37

Learned APP submits, that the CCTV footage which was played in court on behalf of the petitioner in support of his bail plea, was selective in nature and did not reflect the true nature and extent of the violence that was unleashed by the petitioner upon his deceased wife, less than 24 hours before she was found hanging. Learned APP has

¶38

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 4 of 8

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶41

played before this court CCTV footage dated 19.10.2022 (timed at about 1:20 p.m.), which shows the petitioner mercilessly beating his wife by dragging her by her arms and legs across the landing of the stairwell, across from one room to another; and even banging the room-door against her head . It has also been submitted on behalf of the State that a close viewing of the CCTV footage would also show that the petitioner was in the deceased‟s room from 11:33 pm to 11:43 pm on the fateful night, during which time he would likely have inflicted further violence upon the deceased.

¶42

To show the nature and grievousness of the injuries sustained by the deceased, learned APP has placed reliance on postmortem report dated 21.10.2022, and on the testimony of PW-8, namely the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem, to submit that Injury No.4 on the vertex region, was homicidal, and had been caused within 24 hours before the hanging.

¶43

Upon an overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, the following factors weigh with the court at this stage:

¶44

13.1. The petitioner‟s marriage with his now deceased wife was solemnized on 16.02.2021; and, as of now , the allegation is that the wife took her own life on 20.10.2022, i.e. in less than 02 years of her marriage;

¶45

13.2. The CCTV footage that was played in court on behalf of the petitioner appears to paint an incomplete picture of the events which transpired soon before the wife died by hanging;

¶46

13.3. On the other hand, the CCTV footage played on behalf of the State brings into context the circumstances which preceded and

¶47

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 5 of 8

¶48

This is a digitally signed order.

¶49

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶50

unfolded before the hanging, which lead to the death of the wife;

¶51

13.4. The so-called „scuffle‟ between the petitioner and his wife, which the State says had happened sometime before the wife is seen retiring into her own room in the CCTV footage, may also answer why the wife is seen with a cast on her arm; which aspect also requires closer consideration, since a question would arise as to how a person with a cast on her arm could have hanged herself to death;

¶52

13.5. As of date, the evidence of PW-1 (mother of the deceased) and PW-2 (brother of the deceased) recorded before the learned trial court seems to support the prosecution case; and shows that the deceased was subjected to extreme violence at the hands of the petitioner, sometime before her death;

¶53

13.6. The gruesomeness of the incident is also evident from the fact, that as per the material on record, the deceased died by hanging while her 10-month old baby was present in the same room;

¶54

13.7. Furthermore, the post-mortem report of the deceased records 05 injuries on the body, including an injury in the vertex region of the head; and concludes that the cause of death is “… … asphyxia as a result of constriction force around the neck by means of ligating material consequent upon ante-mortem hanging” , which the report says would have occurred about 30 hours before the time of the autopsy;

¶55

13.8. The mere fact, as cited on behalf of the petitioner, that the deceased had compromised the „dispute‟ with the petitioner in

¶56

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 6 of 8

¶57

This is a digitally signed order.

¶58

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶59

the police station on 19.10.2022, at the instance of her brother, does not take away from the gruesomeness of the incident; and the circumstances may even reflect that the deceased was living in mortal fear of the petitioner;

¶60

13.9. The petitioner‟s reliance on the CDRs, to show that the deceased was speaking with her mother and brother for a long spell of time just before she died by hanging, and their argument that therefore the deceased was in a normal state of mind, cannot be dispositive of the issue, since evidence is yet to be led as to what was said in those conversations. In fact, if the petitioner is right, namely, if the deceased was in a normal state of mind since she was speaking to her mother and brother soon before her death, then the question would remain as to whether the wife hanged herself or did someone else do it ;

¶61

13.10.The aforesaid aspects lead this court to believe that the chances that the petitioner may be convicted cannot be ruled-out, at least at this stage.

¶62

Moreover, this court cannot loose sight of the fact that section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 engrafts a presumption in relation to a dowry death, if it is shown that soon before her death, a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a demand for dowry, which the material on record appears to show in the present case.

¶63

Accordingly, this court is not persuaded to admit the petitioner to regular bail, at least at this stage .

¶64

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶65

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 7 of 8

¶66

This is a digitally signed order.

¶67

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

¶68

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.

¶69

Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the evidence in the matter.

¶70

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶71

SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 V.Rawat

¶72

BAIL APPLN. 415/2024 Page 8 of 8

¶73

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:39:21

Govinda Kashyap v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govinda Kashyap v. State (Nct of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Aniket Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs the State NCT of Delhi, Delhi & Anr.

Smt. Sunita Vs Smt. Sushila Devi

Satyendra Prakash Agarwal & Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigaton & Ors.

Dharmender Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Bharat Ashiwal & Ors. Vs State of Gnct of Delhi & Anr.

Vinay & Ors. Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi through, SHO of Ps- Samaypur Badli & Anr.