Dismissed¶7

Vikas Dubey v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC10 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./2976/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail denied; Bail Appln. 2976/2025; High Court of Delhi; Justice Girish Kathpalia; Vikas Dubey; FIR No. 34/2025 PS Metro Police Station Ghitorni; Section 108/3(5) BNS; abetment to suicide (as contended by counsel); suicide note; Chhatarpur Metro Station; AIIMS Trauma Centre; recorded conversations at 06:33 pm and 07:02 pm; obscenities; provocation; proximity argument rejected at this stage; FSL handwriting comparison of suicide note; voice sample sent to FSL; deletion of conversations/evidence destruction; surrender direction dated 11.02.2026; observations not to prejudice either side at final arguments.

What did the court decide?

Just a few hours before the deceased took the suicidal jump, the accused/applicant, across his recorded conversation of 07:02 pm, prima facie did provoke her to take her life. ¶5

Vikas Dubey Vs the State of NCT of Delhi — Domestic Violence | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused/applicant (Vikas Dubey) is entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 34/2025 of PS Metro Police Station Ghitorni for the offence under Section 108/3(5) BNS. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant; the anticipatory bail application is dismissed and the accused/applicant is directed to surrender himself before the investigating officer on 11.02.2026.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Just a few hours before the deceased took the suicidal jump, the accused/applicant, across his recorded conversation of 07:02 pm, prima facie did provoke her to take her life.

¶5

Key takeaways

In the prior recorded conversation of that day at 06:33 pm, the accused/applicant kept mouthing obscenities against the deceased.ratio¶5
On the arguments of proximity of time and residential proximity, the Court, keeping in mind the stage of the proceedings, refrained from passing a detailed view, but recorded that the argument does not hold merit in the circumstances of this case.ratio¶5
Nothing observed in the judgment shall be read to the prejudice of either side at the stage of final arguments.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Girish Kathpalia, J., oral judgment) dismisses the anticipatory bail application of Vikas Dubey in FIR No. 34/2025, PS Metro Police Station Ghitorni, for offence under Section 108/3(5) BNS. On the intervening night of 03.06.2025/04.06.2025 the deceased jumped before an approaching metro train at Chhatarpur Metro Station and was declared brought dead at AIIMS Trauma Centre; a Hindi suicide note recovered from her shoulder bag blamed her husband (the applicant), whose recorded phone conversations with the deceased were retrieved during investigation. Examining the original suicide note and the transcript of the audio conversations, the Court found that a few hours before the suicidal jump the applicant, in his recorded 07:02 pm conversation, prima facie provoked the deceased to take her life, and in the 06:33 pm conversation of that day kept mouthing obscenities against her. Counsel's arguments on proximity of time and residential proximity were held not to hold merit in the circumstances, the Court refraining from a detailed view given the stage of proceedings. On the complainant de facto's disclosure that the applicant was destroying evidence and had deleted conversations from his mobile phone, the Court found it no fit case for anticipatory bail, dismissed the application and directed the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer on 11.02.2026, adding that nothing observed shall be read to the prejudice of either side at final arguments.

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 10.02.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 2976/2025

¶5

VIKAS DUBEY .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Mr. Ishita Bedi and Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with ASI Raj Kumar.

¶9

Mr. Tarunjeet Singh Jolly, Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Advocates for respondent no.2.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 34/2025 of PS Metro Police Station Ghitorni for offence under Section 108/3(5) BNS. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant as well as learned APP for State and learned counsel for complainant de facto.

¶13

Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. In the night

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 18:25:35

¶15

BAIL APPLN. 2976/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶17

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.10 18:07:16 -08'00'

¶18

intervening 03.06.2025 and 04.06.2025, an information was received at PS Ghitorni Metro about a person having jumped before an approaching metro train at Chhatarpur Metro Station. On being shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre, the injured was declared brought dead. In the course of investigation, the deceased was identified and from her shoulder bag, some registers, a college identity card, mobile phone and suicide note were recovered. In the said suicide note, written in Hindi, the deceased blamed her husband ( the accused/applicant herein ) as the culprit who compelled her to take her life. Further, during investigation on the basis of contents of the suicide note, the investigating officer also retrieved the mobile phone conversations between the deceased and the accused/applicant. Those conversations had been recorded by the deceased in her mobile phone and she disclosed in her suicide note having recorded the same.

¶19

In the above backdrop, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that no offence of abetment to suicide is made out in this case. It is contended that in order to make out the case for abetment, there has to be a proximity between the suicide and the alleged provocation. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also contends that it is the deceased only who was staying away from matrimonial home and the fact that she did not initiate any proceedings under Domestic Violence Act shows that she had no complaint against the accused/applicant. Further, it is contended that the deceased was suffering with a severe neurological disorder, so she committed suicide. It is also contended that there was no residential proximity the between the residence of the deceased and residence of the

¶20

BAIL APPLN. 2976/2025

¶21

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶22

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 18:25:35

¶25

accused/applicant, so it is not a case of abetment.

¶26

On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel for complainant de facto submit that the hand written suicide note was sent for forensic analysis; and the FSL, after comparison with the contemporary handwriting of the deceased in her diary came to an opinion the suicide note was written by the deceased only. It is further submitted by learned prosecutor assisted by Investigating Officer/ASI Raj Kumar that even voice sample of the accused/applicant has been obtained and sent to FSL for comparison with the audio recording retrieved from mobile phone of the deceased.

¶27

I have examined the original suicide note as well as the transcript of audio conversation between the deceased and the accused/applicant. Suffice it to record that just a few hours before the deceased took suicidal jump, the accused/applicant across his conversation ( recorded at 07:02pm ) prima facie did provoke her to take her life. Even in the prior conversation of that day at 06:33pm, the accused/applicant kept mouthing obscenities against the deceased. As regards the argument of proximity of time and the residential proximity, keeping in mind stage of the proceedings, I would refrain from passing a detailed view on this, but suffice it to record that the argument does not hold merit in the circumstances of this case.

¶28

At this stage, learned counsel for complainant de facto also discloses that the accused/applicant is destroying the evidence and has even deleted the conversations from his mobile phone, therefore, grant of anticipatory

¶29

BAIL APPLN. 2976/2025

¶30

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶31

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - KATHPALIA 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff 801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.10 18:06:54 -08'00'

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 18:25:35

¶34

bail would frustrate and fail the investigation.

¶35

In view of above discussion, I do not find it a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/applicant. The anticipatory bail application is dismissed. The accused/applicant is directed to surrender himself before the investigating officer tomorrow itself (11.02.2026).

¶36

Of course, nothing observed herein shall be read to the prejudice of either side at the stage of final arguments.

¶37

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc
a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.02.10 18:06:42 -08'00'

¶38

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶39

FEBRUARY 10, 2026/ ry

¶40

BAIL APPLN. 2976/2025

¶41

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 0.02.2026 18:25:35

Vikas Dubey v. the State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Dubey 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

Shiv Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Master Asif Alam Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

La Housing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

Anand Mandal Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Sanjay @ Maandu Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Vijay Kumar@Lakhan Vs State Government of NCT Delhi