Dismissed¶¶27

Pawan @ Chhoti v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC11 Nov 2025BAIL APPLN./3368/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail denied; Pawan @ Chhoti; BAIL APPLN. 3368/2025; Delhi High Court; Justice Ravinder Dudeja; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No. 007/2025; Sections 80/85/3(5) BNS; dowry death; presumption Section 113-B Evidence Act; parity with co-accused rejected; ante-mortem hanging; P.S. Shahbad Dairy; charges not framed; risk of influencing witnesses; wife's death within 7 years of marriage.

What did the court decide?

Since the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage at her matrimonial home and there are allegations she was tortured for dowry demand, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applies. ¶¶22

Pawan @ Chhoti Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 3368/2025

¶4

PAWAN @ CHHOTI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sourav Bajaj and Mr. Bhuvneshwar Prasad Nadheria, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 11.11.2025

¶11

This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Pawan @ Chhoti under Section 483 of BNSS for the grant of bail in case FIR No. 007/2025 under Section 80/85/3(5) of BNS registered at P.S.Shahbad Dairy.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been completed and the applicant is not required for custodial interrogation. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his instance. The alleged recovery, if any, is planted by the police officials to solve the case.

¶13

It is further submitted that the allegations are highly improbable and the applicant is in custody since January 2025. Co-accused has since been released on bail, and therefore, on the ground of parity, the applicant is also entitled for the grant of bail.

¶14

The bail application has been opposed by learned APP. He has made

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 13/11/2025 at 11:35:46

¶17

submissions on the lines of the status report. He further states that coaccused granted bail is the sister of the applicant and her role as per the FIR is totally different, and therefore, applicant is not entitled for the grant of bail.

¶18

As per status report, on 03.01.2025, an information was received at Police Station Shahbad Dairy vide DD No. 38A that one patient Renuka was brought in the hospital by her husband with the alleged history of hanging. Upon examination, the doctor declared her brought dead. Upon enquiry, the husband and in-laws of the deceased had stated that the deceased Renuka had hanged herself with the help of Chunni in the bathroom of her house.

¶19

The mother of the deceased, in her statement before the SDM stated that her daughter got married with the applicant on 15.04.2024. It was a love marriage. She stated that soon after the marriage, the applicant started torturing Renuka for demand of dowry and deceased had narrated these facts to her by telephone. Complainant alleged that the applicant had forced Renuka for suicide.

¶20

The SDM also recorded the statement of the sister of the deceased, namely, Simran who also corroborated the statement of her mother.

¶21

The postmortem of the body revealed that the cause of death was due to asphyxia consequent to ante-mortem hanging.

¶22

It has been found during investigation that the deceased had got married with the applicant on 15.04.2024 and she died on 03.01.2025 otherwise under normal circumstances. The deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage at her matrimonial home and there are allegations that she was tortured by the applicant for dowry demand. The presumption of Section 113 B of the Evidence Act shall apply in the present case.

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 13/11/2025 at 11:35:46

¶25

There are specific allegations made by the complainant against the present applicant. The trial is still at an initial stage inasmuch as the formal charges are yet not framed.

¶26

Admittedly, co-accused who is the sister of the applicant has since been enlarged on bail, however, it is seen that that the applicant is the main accused being the husband, and therefore, he cannot claim parity in terms of grant of bail.

¶27

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of allegations, and the trial being still at an initial stage, the possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses or winning them cannot be ruled out at this stage. I am therefore not inclined to grant bail to the applicant/accused. The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.

¶29

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶30

NOVEMBER 11, 2025/ib/na

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 13/11/2025 at 11:35:46

Pawan @ Chhoti v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan @ Chhoti v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Gaurav and Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Suman Vs State NCT of Delhi

Prakash @ Prakash Chand & Ors. Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Ankur Ghildiyal Vs Sanjeev Puri

Mohd.Farid Ansari Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Nafe Singh Vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr.