Ayodhya Devi Alias Jyoti vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 06.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 26.05.2026
+ BAIL APPLN. 920/2026
AYODHYA DEVI ALIAS JYOTI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hitesh Aggarwal, Mr. Veer
Chand Kumar, Advocates

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State.
Mr. Mayank Mehandru, Ms.
Charu Tandon, Mr. Raghav
Tandon, Advocates for the
complainant.

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of the present application, the applicant is seeking grant
of regular bail in case arising out of FIR bearing no. 573/2024,
registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar, Delhi, for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 80(2)/85/3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’ ).
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 1 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that a PCR call
vide DD no. 12 was received at P.S. Vivek Vihar, Delhi, wherein the
caller had informed that his daughter-in-law had committed suicide by
hanging. Upon reaching the spot, the police officials had found that
the deceased had committed suicide by hanging and that her husband
and brother-in-law had taken down her body and placed it on the bed.
The Crime Team and FSL Team had inspected the spot. The parents
of the deceased, who are residents of District Lakhimpur Khiri, Uttar
Pradesh, were informed about the incident. The concerned SDM was
also intimated. On 01.12.2024, the post-mortem examination of the
deceased was conducted. The statement of the father of the deceased
was thereafter recorded by the SDM concerned. In his statement, the
complainant informed the SDM that the deceased was married to co-
accused Deepak Kumar on 11.04.2024 and that a sufficient amount
had been spent on their marriage. However, according to the
complainant, the husband and in-laws of the deceased had continued
to demand further dowry and had subjected the deceased to physical
and mental harassment. It was also alleged that on 29.11.2024, the
deceased had informed her brother about the harassment being caused
to her. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be
registered.
3. During investigation, it was found that the husband of the
deceased was a minor and he was apprehended on 01.12.2024. The
statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 180 of the
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 2 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

BNSS. The school records had revealed that both the deceased and her
husband were minors at the time of marriage, which had been
solemnized in Village Nayanpurva, District Lakhimpur Khiri, Uttar
Pradesh. The complainant had also produced a USB drive, containing
call recordings of conversations between the deceased and her brother
dated 29.11.2024, i.e., shortly before the deceased had committed
suicide, which was seized during investigation. In the said audio
recording, the deceased is heard telling her brother that her
husband/co-accused had been using abusive and threatening language
against her and had threatened to parade her naked on the street and
forcibly tear her clothes, including her petticoat . She further stated
that when she had attempted to prevent him from throwing away her
clothes, he had gone near the outer gate of the house and had again
started abusing her while reiterating his threat to parade her naked in
the street. She had also alleged that he used filthy and derogatory
language against her. Thereafter, present accused Ayodhya Devi, i.e.,
the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the co-accused father-in-law
were also arrested. The father, mother, brother and bua of the
deceased had also given statements alleging that the deceased had
been threatened and harassed on account of non-fulfilment of a
demand of ₹3 lakhs. Upon completion of investigation, the
chargesheet was filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant,
Ayodhya Devi, argues that the prosecution itself is relying upon an
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 3 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

audio recording of a conversation between the deceased and her
brother, recorded approximately one hour prior to the incident. It is
contended that the said conversation clearly reflects that the deceased
was disturbed on account of a quarrel with her husband arising out of
an Instagram chat involving another girl, and not due to any alleged
demand for dowry. It is further argued that throughout the said audio
recording, no allegation whatsoever regarding dowry demand or
harassment has been levelled against the present applicant. It is also
argued that the applicant was neither present at the time of the alleged
quarrel nor at the time when the deceased allegedly committed
suicide. The learned counsel further contends that the essential
ingredients of Section 80(2) of the BNS are not made out against the
applicant, as there is no material on record to indicate that the
deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection
with dowry demands soon before her death. It is argued that the
investigation already stands concluded and the chargesheet has been
filed; therefore, nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant
and all relevant evidence is already in the possession of the
prosecution. It is further argued that the applicant has clean
antecedents, is not a flight risk, and there is no likelihood of her
tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The learned
counsel also submits that the applicant has remained in judicial
custody for a considerable period and that the trial is not likely to
conclude in the near future. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 4 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

application seeking grant of regular bail be allowed.
5. Per contra , the learned APP for the State opposes the bail
application on the ground that the allegations against the
applicant/accused are serious in nature. It is contended that the
statements of the parents and relatives of the deceased consistently
disclose continuous demands for dowry, along with harassment and
threats meted out to the deceased on account of non-fulfilment of such
demands. It is further argued that the statements recorded under
Section 180 of the BNSS are consistent and corroborate the call
recording of the conversation between the deceased and her brother
dated 29.11.2024, i.e., shortly before the alleged commission of
suicide, which had been supplied by the complainant through a USB
drive. It is further contended that the present applicant/accused, being
the mother-in-law of the deceased, is one of the principal accused in
the case, particularly since the husband of the deceased was a minor
and had allegedly acted under the direct influence of his parents,
including the present applicant. The learned APP also contends that
the material witnesses in the present case are yet to be examined
before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, there exists a possibility
of the applicant influencing or intimidating them if released on bail.
Accordingly, it is prayed that the present bail application be
dismissed.
6. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the
applicant as well as the State, and has perused the material available
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 5 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

on record.
7. After hearing arguments and going through the case file, this
Court is of the opinion that the complainant as well as the prosecution
have relied upon the audio recording of a phone conversation between
the deceased and her brother, who is also a witness in the present case,
which was recorded shortly before the deceased had committed
suicide. The conversation reveals that the deceased, while speaking to
her brother, could be heard narrating how she had been brutally beaten
by her husband, who was allegedly angry with her for using his
father’s phone and for having seen certain messages exchanged with
another girl. The deceased had also informed her brother that since she
had read the messages and had sent a reply, her husband had thrown
all her clothes out of the almirah and outside the gate of the house, and
had thereafter attempted to parade her naked. The deceased had also
stated that she was particularly disturbed and embarrassed because,
while her husband had torn her clothes, the co-accused, i.e., the father-
in-law, had entered the room and had seen her in that condition. This
prima facie reflects that the father-in-law was present at the spot at the
relevant time, though he allegedly did not intervene or assist the
deceased. Admittedly, the present applicant/accused was not present
in the house at that particular time.
8. However, it is pertinent to note that the marriage between the
deceased and the co-accused had been solemnized on 11.04.2024, and
the deceased had committed suicide on 29.11.2024, i.e., within a
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 6 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

period of about eight months of marriage. This Court also notes that,
in the aforesaid audio conversation recorded only a few hours prior to
the incident, the deceased had specifically expressed her humiliation
and distress on account of her clothes having been torn and her father-
in-law having seen her in that condition.
9. Nevertheless, the allegations in the present case cannot be
examined in isolation and are required to be considered in their
entirety. As far as the present applicant is concerned, the aforesaid
audio recording is required to be considered along with the statements
of the complainant and the other witnesses recorded during
investigation. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that
these allegations may, at best, attract Section 85 of the BNS, but not
Section 80(2) of the BNS, since according to the applicant, the FIR
only discloses allegations of cruelty and does not specifically disclose
any demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased. However ,
this Court notes that there is also a specific reference in the complaint
regarding an incident that had taken place shortly before
Rakshabandhan, when the deceased had allegedly been beaten on
account of dowry demands and had even been thrown out of the
matrimonial home during the night hours. It is alleged that thereafter,
she had made a phone call to her brother Rakesh from another
person’s mobile phone, following which her brother had brought her
back to the parental home. During her stay there for a few days, she
had allegedly disclosed to her parents the manner in which she was
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 7 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

being harassed by the present applicant along with the other co-
accused persons on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands.
10. As regards the argument that no prior complaint had been made
in the matter, the statement of the complainant/father reveals that he
had informed the police that, shortly before Rakshabandhan, the
deceased had been brought back to her parental home after being
beaten by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfilment of dowry
demands and after being threatened at her matrimonial home. It has
also come on record that her husband, Deepak, had allegedly broken
her mobile phone and SIM card. Nevertheless, she had managed to
make a phone call to her brother from another person’s mobile phone.
At that relevant time, her brother was residing in Delhi and had
thereafter brought her to the parental home.
11. The complainant has specifically stated in his statement that,
after the aforesaid incident in which the deceased had allegedly been
thrown out of the matrimonial home, he had spoken to the present
accused as well as co-accused Deepak in the morning. According to
him, upon his intervention, the co-accused father-in-law had started
abusing and threatening him. Thereafter, around the time of
Rakshabandhan, the younger brother of the deceased had brought her
back to parental home, where she had stayed for about 8–10 days.
During that period, she was allegedly in a state of deep depression and
had disclosed to her parents that her husband and his parents used to
harass and torture her on account of non-fulfilment of a demand of ₹3
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 8 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

lakhs in dowry. The complainant has further stated that the deceased
had expressed that she was unable to bear the harassment any longer
and had repeatedly stated that only her death could bring her relief
from such torture. The complainant further stated that he and his wife,
i.e., the mother of the deceased, had thereafter explained to co-accused
Deepak, the husband of the deceased, that he should not harass or ill-
treat their daughter, and only thereafter had the deceased been sent
back to her matrimonial home. However, according to the
complainant, after she returned to the matrimonial home, she was
again subjected to beatings and harassment by her husband and in-
laws, including the present applicant. The complainant has also
explained that no formal complaint had been lodged earlier against the
accused persons since the family wished that the deceased should
settle peacefully in her matrimonial home and they did not want to
disturb the marriage.
12. The complainant has further stated that the deceased
occasionally used to make secret phone calls either to them or to one
of her aunts from the mobile phone of her sister-in-law and would
disclose how the present applicant and the other co-accused persons
continued to harass her for non-fulfilment of the demand of ₹3 lakhs.
According to the complainant, the deceased had repeatedly stated that
the harassment caused her such mental distress that she felt that the
only way to escape it was to end her life. The complainant has also
stated that the brother of the deceased, namely Rakesh, had repeatedly
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 9 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

advised her not to take any extreme step and had assured her that he
would speak to her in-laws. However, on 29.11.2024, at about 11:20
PM, the deceased had again called Rakesh from her sister-in-law’s
mobile phone while crying and in a distressed condition, and had
disclosed that co-accused Deepak had torn her clothes and had
threatened to parade her naked. Upon being informed by his son about
the said incident, the complainant had immediately telephoned co-
accused Deepak, but according to him, Deepak neither gave any
satisfactory response nor allowed him to speak to the deceased despite
repeated requests. The complainant has stated that he had made 3–4
phone calls to Deepak, but thereafter his calls were not answered. He
also tried calling the number from which the deceased had spoken, but
no response was received. At about 01:30 AM, he received
information that the deceased had died.
13. The complainant has further stated that the deceased also used
to speak to her aunt ( bua ), i.e., the elder sister of the complainant, and
had similarly disclosed to her that the present applicant along with the
co-accused persons used to torture her for non-fulfilment of the
demand of ₹3 lakhs.
14. These specific allegations regarding demand of dowry against
the present applicant, when considered alongside the aforesaid audio
recording and the statements of the parents and other witnesses, prima
facie indicate that the deceased had repeatedly informed her family
members that she was being harassed by the present applicant along
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 10 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

with the other co-accused persons on account of non-fulfilment of the
demand of ₹3 lakhs. The statements further reveal that the deceased
had allegedly been subjected to such physical and mental harassment
that she repeatedly expressed before her parents and aunt that the only
way to escape the torture was to end her life.
15. In the opinion of this Court, the present case reflects a
disturbing reality of society where, even today, a young girl aged
about 19 years is alleged to have been driven to commit suicide
because her parents were unable to fulfil an unlawful demand of ₹3
lakhs allegedly raised by her in-laws, including the present applicant,
merely on account of her marriage into their family. The seriousness
of the allegations is further aggravated by the fact that the marriage
was only about eight months old at the time of the incident and that
the deceased was allegedly subjected to continuous harassment during
this brief period of matrimonial life. Prima facie , the material on
record indicates that such harassment had allegedly reached a stage
where the deceased believed that the only escape from the conduct of
her husband and in-laws was to take her own life. It is for addressing
precisely such situations that provisions such as Sections 498-A and
304B of the IPC had been enacted by the legislature.
16. As regards the question of grant of bail at this stage, this Court
is of the opinion that a young life has been lost under tragic
circumstances. The material collected during investigation, including
the audio conversation between the deceased and her brother wherein
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 11 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

she is heard crying and narrating the incident of being threatened with
being paraded naked, when read together with the allegations of
persistent harassment on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands,
lends seriousness to the allegations levelled against the applicant.
17. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shabeen Ahmed v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: 2025 INSC 307 has categorically held
that, in cases involving the alleged dowry death of a young bride
within a short span of marriage, Courts, while considering an
application for bail, are required to exercise greater caution and
undertake a careful scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances, keeping
in view the gravity of the offence and its larger societal impact. The
relevant observations are reproduced as under:
“ 15. …..It is unfortunate that in today’s society, dowry deaths
remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts
are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the
circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The
social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases
cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious
circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the
judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness. A
superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines
the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public
faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry
deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and
outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk
normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent
lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in grievous
crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar v.
Waseem in the following paras:
“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be
granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the
Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 12 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

accusations made against the accused, the manner in which
the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of
the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, (2024) 10 SCC 768 the
probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the
offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood
of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is
granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and
evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of
releasing the accused on bail. [Refer : Chaman Lal v. State
of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1974] ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7
SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ; Masroor v. State of U.P.
[Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1
SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] ; Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] ; Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 :(2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
425] ; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] .]
27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought
not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an
unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to
interference by the superior court. If there are serious
allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused
the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by
the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be
revoked by a superior court if it transpires that the courts
below have ignored the relevant material available on
record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the
impact on the society resulting in such an order. In P v.
State of M.P. [P v. State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211]
decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court [authored by
one of us (Hima Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the considerations
that must weigh with the Court for interfering in an order
granting bail to an accused under Section 439(1)CrPC in
the following words : (SCC p. 224, para 24) “24. As can be
discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling bail once
BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 13 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

granted, the court must consider whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the accused
post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom
by enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram
v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
237] . To put it differently, in ordinary circumstances, this
Court would be loathe to interfere with an order passed by
the court below granting bail but if such an order is found
to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is
irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and
interference by the appellate court.” Considerations for
setting aside bail orders
28. The considerations that weigh with the appellate court
for setting aside the bail order on an application being
moved by the aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief
to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail,
any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate,
resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being
extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the
part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any
manner. We may add that this list is only illustrative and
not exhaustive. However, the court must be cautious that at
the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to
be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of
the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to
be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should
reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court
for granting relief to the accused.”
16. We clarify that our present observations are limited to
deciding whether the bail of each Accused is liable to be
cancelled. The trial court shall proceed on its own assessment
of evidence, uninfluenced by any of the remarks made herein.
17. In view of the discussion above, we direct that the bail
granted to Accused No.2 (father-in-law) and Accused No.3
(mother-in-law) is hereby cancelled. They shall surrender
before the concerned trial court/authority forthwith, failing
which the authorities shall take steps to take them into
custody.”

BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 14 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54

18. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the FSL
report regarding the conclusive cause of death is still awaited, and
the material witnesses are yet to be examined before the learned Trial
Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that it would not be in the interest of justice to release the present
applicant on bail at this stage, particularly when there exists a
possibility of interference with the prosecution evidence or
influencing the witnesses.
19. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed,
alongwith pending application, if any.

20. However, the applicant will be at liberty to move a fresh bail
application after the complainant is examined and the learned Trial
Court is requested to ensure that the complainant is examined at the
earliest.
21. It is also clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall
tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.
22. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 25, 2026/A
GJ

BAIL APPLN. 920/2026 Page 15 of 15


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:26.05.2026
19:17:54