Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Wife's Suicide Case, Citing Provocative Evidence
The Delhi High Court has firmly rejected a man's plea for anticipatory bail in a tragic case involving his wife's alleged suicide at Chhatarpur Metro Station in June 2025. Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a decisive order dated February 10, 2026, emphasized that the accused provoked his wife to take the extreme step, based on a dying note and audio recordings recovered during the investigation.
Court's Findings: Dying Note and Call Recordings Point to Provocation
In the hearing, Justice Kathpalia examined critical evidence, including the original suicide note and transcripts of audio conversations between the deceased and the accused. The court noted that just hours before the woman took a suicidal jump, the accused, in a recorded conversation at 7:02 PM, prima facie provoked her to end her life. Another recording from 6:33 PM on the same day revealed the accused uttering obscenities against the victim, further strengthening the case against him.
The court dismissed arguments regarding the proximity of time and residential distance, stating they held no merit in this context. It highlighted that the anticipatory bail was denied due to concerns that the accused was destroying evidence, including deleting conversations from his mobile phone. Consequently, the court directed the accused to surrender himself before the investigating officer.
Case Background: Investigation Uncovers Disturbing Details
The case originated when police received information about the victim's suicide at Chhatarpur Metro Station in June 2025. She was rushed to a hospital but was declared dead. During the investigation, items such as her shoulder bag, registers, a college identity card, and a mobile phone helped establish her identity. A dying note was recovered, in which she allegedly blamed the accused for compelling her to take her life.
Subsequently, the investigating officer retrieved mobile phone conversations between the victim and her husband, which were recorded by the victim herself and mentioned in her note. These recordings, along with the note, were placed on record, suggesting the accused's role in provoking the suicide.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
Advocate Vikram Pratap Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that his client did not provoke the victim and that there was no case for abetment, as there should be a closer proximity between the death and alleged provocation. He noted that the victim was living away from the matrimonial home and had not initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, indicating no prior complaints. Singh also mentioned that the victim suffered from a severe neurological disorder, which he claimed led to her suicide.
In contrast, Assistant Public Prosecutor Hemant Mehla submitted that the dying note was handwritten by the victim, confirmed through forensic analysis comparing it with her diary entries. Mehla also pointed out that the accused's voice sample had been obtained and sent for comparison with the audio recordings from the victim's phone, with assistance from the investigating officer.
Broader Legal Context: 'Truth Sits Upon Lips of Dying Person'
In a related development, the Delhi High Court, in an unrelated case on February 6, set aside the acquittal of a husband and his sister in a 36-year-old dowry death case. The bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav considered the victim's last note, observing that "truth sits upon the lips of a dying person," making their final utterances credible. This principle underscores the weight given to dying declarations in Indian jurisprudence.
The verdict quoted William Shakespeare, highlighting the value of truthful words in such grave matters. This case reinforces the court's commitment to justice in sensitive suicide and death-related investigations, ensuring that evidence like dying notes and recordings are thoroughly evaluated to hold accountable those who may have contributed to such tragedies.
