Delhi HC: Custodial interrogation not required merely for recovery of stridhan, grants anticipatory bail to 80-year-old
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to an 80-year-old man, ruling that custodial interrogation is not needed just to recover stridhan.
In a significant observation regarding matrimonial disputes and investigative procedures, the Delhi High Court has ruled that custodial interrogation is not a necessity simply to facilitate the recovery of stridhan. The court granted anticipatory bail to an 80-year-old retired government employee facing serious allegations in a matrimonial conflict.
Court Questions Investigating Officer's Claims
While hearing the plea, Justice Girish Kathpalia expressed skepticism toward the investigating officer's assertions. The prosecution had claimed that the elderly accused had failed to cooperate with the investigation despite receiving repeated notices. However, when the court demanded proof of these notices, the officer admitted they had only been issued verbally.
The court noted several discrepancies in the investigation process:
- No formal written notices were produced to prove the accused was summoned.
- No case diary was presented to substantiate the claims regarding the alleged notices.
- The lack of documentation failed to inspire confidence in the court.
Consequently, the court held that there was no evidence to suggest the accused had intentionally avoided joining the investigation.
Stridhan Recovery and the Domain of Bail Courts
A central argument raised by the prosecution was the need for custodial interrogation to recover the complainant's stridhan. The High Court rejected this reasoning, stating that such a requirement is "certainly not a requisite."
The court further clarified that the issue of whether stridhan has been returned or not does not fall within the domain of a bail court for the purpose of securing its recovery. It was observed that the complainant had not yet initiated the appropriate legal proceedings specifically designed for the recovery of such assets.
Serious Allegations and Defense Arguments
The case involves a complex web of charges. Initially registered on April 29, 2026, under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC, the FIR was later expanded to include Sections 354, 354A, 376 of the IPC, and Section 74 of the BNS. The complainant, who is the daughter-in-law of the accused, alleged instances of sexual harassment and physical assault occurring as far back as May 2022.
The accused, the father-in-law, has maintained his innocence, arguing that these allegations were fabricated as a tactic to exert pressure on his son during an ongoing matrimonial dispute. In support of this, the court noted the presence of family photographs showing the accused, the complainant, and their child appearing together in a harmonious setting.
Balancing Law and Matrimonial Disputes
In its decision, the High Court referenced the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reminding authorities that arrests in matrimonial matters should not be automatic or routine.
While the court acknowledged that allegations of sexual misconduct in such cases cannot be dismissed as false without investigation, it also noted the significant delay in filing the FIR, as the alleged incidents occurred years before the complaint was lodged. The court emphasized that while these observations were made for the limited purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail plea, the final determination of guilt or innocence remains the responsibility of the trial court based on the evidence presented.