HC denies anticipatory bail to husband in dowry harassment case, says he bluffed court

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a man, accused of harassing his wife, on the ground that he bluffed the court by making wrong allegations that his spouse was not capable of establishing sexual relations.

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said in the majority of such cases, the court has granted anticipatory and regular bail to the accused persons, but considering the conduct of the husband in this matter, it was inclined not to grant him the relief.

The man had sought anticipatory bail in the case filed by his estranged wife, alleging that she was harassed by him and his parents.

During the pendency of the plea, the judge interacted with the estranged couple in his chamber where the man stated that he was in love with the woman for a year before marriage and thereafter they tied the nuptial knot in November 2016.

He claimed that neither before nor after marriage, they had sexual intercourse.

The woman, however, told the court that during their affair and after marriage, they have had sexual relations and she was capable of doing so.

When the court asked the woman whether she was willing to stay with her husband, she had replied in affirmative but the man said he cannot continue the relationship as she was not capable of sexual intercourse.

The court directed the medical superintendents of AIIMS and RML Hospital to examine the woman in this regard and as per the medical reports, she was capable of having sexual intercourse.

On receipt of the report, the man agreed to stay with the woman and they lived together for 24 days, the court noted.

"The petitioner (man) is personally present in court today (January 14) and has admitted that during the stay of 24 days, they had sexual relations.

"If the petitioner is admitting that they had sexual intercourse during the aforesaid period, then this court cannot believe that the petitioner and respondent no.2 (woman) did not have sexual relations at least after marriage. Thus, he has bluffed and misled this court by making wrong allegations against respondent no.2," the judge said and declined to grant him anticipatory bail.

The man had sought anticipatory bail claiming that the FIR lodged by the woman was a counter of the divorce petition to pressurise him and his family.

He said his arrest would destroy his social status and he will also lose his job and added that he was ready to join the investigation as and when called by the police.

The woman had claimed that certain disputes arose between them after one year of the marriage and alleged that her in-laws used to make sarcastic remarks about the dowry items given in the marriage.

She alleged the man had insulted and slapped her and she was mentally and physically harassed by him and his parents. An FIR was lodged in the matter in December 2018 for alleged offences under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust).