$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010297742026 + BAIL APPLN. 2666/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20280/2026, CRL.M.A. 22877/2026 RAVI KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Uppal, Mr. R.K. Singh and Mr. Gambhir Chauhan, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP for State. Mr. Avdhesh Saraswat, Adv. for complainant. Complainant-in-person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS') seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 287/2026, registered at Police Station New Usmanpur, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNS'). 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnised on 20.02.2019 and the unfortunate incident occurred merely four days prior to the completion of seven years of the marriage. It is submitted that two 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:35 children, a son and a daughter, were born out of the said wedlock and the deceased was deeply attached to both of them. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that it was the petitioner who had encouraged the deceased to continue her education after marriage and bore the expenses of her studies, as a result whereof she became the first graduate in her parental family. It is submitted that on the date of the incident, the petitioner was at his workplace. It is further submitted that the deceased had remained in conversation with her brother and sister through calls for a whole day prior to the incident, and the petitioner is unaware of what transpired during those conversations which may have prompted the deceased to take the extreme step. 5. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the present application and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature. It is submitted that as per the complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased, the deceased had been subjected to continuous harassment on account of dowry demands, including a demand for ₹2 lakhs and a car. It is further submitted by the learned APP that the complainant received a call from the father-in- law of the deceased at about 7:21 PM informing him that the deceased had committed suicide. However, as per the call records, the deceased is stated to have spoken with her sister between 7:26 PM and 7:28 PM. According to the learned APP, this discrepancy in the timeline raises suspicion and warrants a detailed investigation. It is contended that the death having occurred within seven years of the marriage, coupled with the allegations of persistent dowry harassment, raises a strong prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:35 counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP and has perused the material placed on record. 7. The allegations against the petitioner pertain to offences punishable under Sections 80, 85 and 3(5) BNS. Admittedly, the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and the death has occurred within seven years of the marriage. At this stage, the allegations of persistent cruelty and dowry demands culminating in the unnatural death of the deceased require a thorough investigation. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding the absence of any prior complaint, his presence at his workplace at the time of the incident, and the educational support extended by him to the deceased are matters which shall be examined during the course of investigation and at the appropriate stage of trial. However, at this stage, the said submissions do not persuade this Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner or to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased, the fact that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, and the stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 6, 2026/b/P 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 11/08/2026 at 11:14:35