The Delhi High Court has ruled that police cannot seek custodial interrogation only to recover a woman’s stridhan, saying such recovery is not something a bail court is meant to secure.
The accused told the court that the allegations were made to pressure his son, the complainant’s husband, in the couple’s matrimonial dispute. The prosecution opposed bail, saying custodial interrogation would be more effective and the investigation was still at an early stage.
Questions over the investigation
When the court asked to see the notices, the officer said they had been given verbally. The court said this did not inspire confidence and concluded the accused was never actually asked to join the investigation. It called custody “certainly not a requisite” for that, and added that the complainant had not yet started proper legal proceedings to get her stridhan back. State of Bihar, which says arrests in matrimonial cases should not be automatic. It said custody is a question of the child’s welfare rather than a contest between parents, and stressed the value of the child having both parents involved.
The investigating officer first claimed the accused had ignored repeated notices to join the probe. No case diary was produced either. On custodial interrogation, the court noted that the only reason given was to recover the complainant’s stridhan. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnesh Kumar v. It also cautioned that allegations of sexual misconduct in such disputes cannot be assumed to be false, and that each case turns on its own facts. It also took note of family photographs showing the accused, the complainant and their child together. The court stressed that these points were weighed only for bail and that the trial court must decide the case on evidence. The court also noted that a Canadian court had given custody of the couple’s three-year-old child to the husband.
