$~64

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 22.01.2025
+ BAIL APPLN. 262/2025
JYOTI ALIAS KITTU .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Jha and
Ms. Aarti, Advocates
versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 1852/2025 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 262/2025
3. The case in hand, unfolded an incident of causing burn injuries
by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on the husband by
a wife, where she now seeks a lenient view since she is a woman and
therefore, prays that she be granted anticipatory bail.

4. The facts of the case are stark. On the first day of the year 2025,
i.e. 01.01.2025, a PCR call was received vide DD nos. 32A, 39A and
40A at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi. On reaching the spot, the PCR
caller Sh. Vishal s/o Sh. Taj Singh informed the IO that injured Sh.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 1 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 Suraj and his wife Jyoti alongwith one minor daughter „D‟ aged about
3 months have been residing at 1st floor of their house as tenants. At
about 3 AM, he had heard, the tenant Suraj shouting for help and his
face, chest and neck were burnt. However, his wife was not present at
the premises. Their minor child aged about three months was also
crying in the room.

5. The investigation further revealed that the accused Ms. Jyoti

had poured boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on the victim,
her husband Sh. Suraj. The victim Sh. Suraj, unfolded the incident to
the police that at about 03:00 AM, his wife, accused Jyoti had, while
he was sleeping, poured boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on
his face, neck, chest and eyes. Thereafter, she had locked the room
from outside to ensure that he will not receive any medical aid and had
fled from the spot. She had also left their three months old daughter in
the room itself. Accused Jyoti had also taken the mobile phone of
Suraj along with her to ensure he is not able to contact anyone. He
also informed the police that he had discovered documentary proof
that his wife Ms. Jyoti has made many false complaints of rape against
several persons. When he had confronted her with the same, she had
threatened him of dire consequences, before the incident in question.
She was infuriated when he had told her that he had lodged a
complaint against her with the police and she had threatened him that
„main tujhe dekh lungi‟. He had gone to sleep at 10:00 PM when the
incident took place at 3:00 AM when he was fast asleep.

6. Accordingly, an FIR bearing no. 04/2025, was registered at P.S.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 2 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 Nangloi, Outer District, Delhi, for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 110/351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

7. Issue notice. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, learned APP accepts

notice on behalf of the State.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant argues

that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and
she herself is a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her
husband, since they were married on 14.02.2024. It is also argued that
the victim herein was talking to some other girls since 31.12.2024 and
a quarrel had taken place between the victim and the applicant. The
learned counsel however is unable to address the Court regarding the
injuries sustained by the victim and the conduct of the applicant, who
is evading arrest. He categorically states that he does not know as to
how the victim had sustained injuries.

9. The learned APP for the State argues that the applicant herein
had planned to kill the victim as is apparent from his statement
recorded by the police. It is argued that the injuries which have been
sustained by the victim herein, as apparent from the MLC, point out
that the applicant intended to kill the victim herein who is her
husband. The learned APP for the State, on instructions from the I.O.,
also submits that two separate FIRs under Section 376 of IPC already
stand registered against two separate persons, wherein the accused
herein is the victim.

10. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned

counsel for the applicant as well as learned APP for the State and has

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 3 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 gone through the case file as well as the statement of the victim and
other witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

11. This Court notes that the victim husband has clearly disclosed
in his statement that the applicant herein had filed a false rape case
against him and under threat, he had got married to her. They were
married on 14.02.2024 and were staying in a rented accommodation.
He states that he was forced to live with the applicant and marry her
since she had threatened him that in case he will not live with her, she
will file a false complaint against him, his uncle, his father and his
brother at P.S. Bawana, Delhi. However, the case was settled and they
had started living as husband and wife.

12. Though the learned counsel for the applicant states that it was
the applicant/wife who was being tortured and harassed by the victim
husband herein and his family members, no complaint has been
lodged against them by the applicant/accused.

13. Further, the victim had already filed a complaint four days prior
to the incident with the police regarding which the accused was upset
about with the victim. In the complaint lodged on 27.12.2024 i.e. four
days prior to the incident in question, he has narrated that one day
when he had come back from work, he had found that his mother-in-
law had brought one girl child, aged about two years, to the rented
accommodation and had told him that she was the daughter of the
applicant herein from her previous husband. It was then, that he had
come to know that she had been earlier married and also had a child
from her previous husband, and that there was a concealment of the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 4 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 fact of her previous marriages and having a child from one of the
marriages. He had also come across certain documents and
photographs which pointed that the applicant herein had been in
relationship with 9-10 other persons, and she had married three or four
times and had also filed cases under Section 376 of IPC against some
of them.

14. It is when the victim had confronted the applicant with those
facts, that she had threatened him that she will kill him as is mentioned
in the FIR i.e. “Jyoti boli tujhe toh jaan se maarna hi hai, wa ab tu
marega”. She had thereafter poured boiling water mixed with chilli
powder on his eyes, on his chest and on his neck and he was badly
burnt. It was only when he was raising the alarm that the son of the
landlord had heard and unlocked him and found that the victim had
been burnt and was lying in the room along with the three-months-old
child.

15. The MLC has also been perused by this Court which reveals
that the victim has suffered injuries on his eyes, nose, and particularly
shoulder, neck, arms, chest. During the course of arguments, the
learned APP also placed before this Court, the details of two FIRs i.e.
FIR No. 572/2020, registered at P.S. Palam, Delhi and FIR No.
262/2019, registered at P.S. Dayal Pur, Delhi, for the offences
punishable under Section 376 of IPC, on the basis of complaints filed
by the applicant herein. The documents and photographs which were
mentioned by the victim herein in his complaint, regarding her
marriage, etc., have also been handed over by the I.O. to the Court.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 5 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 16. Though the learned counsel for the applicant argued that it was
the applicant who has been harassed by the husband herein and only
when he was talking to some other girls, an altercation had taken
place, there is yet no explanation offered as to how the victim has
sustained injuries and as to why the applicant herein fled the spot with
his phone after locking him inside the room and is absconding. On the
other hand, the categorical statement of the husband, as discussed in
the preceding paragraphs, reveals as to how the applicant herein had
systematically ensured that either grievous injuries are caused to him
which are sufficient to cause his death by pouring boiling water mixed
with chilli powder on his face and chest while he was fast asleep and
thereafter, bolted the door from outside, taking his phone with her to
ensure that he was trapped inside the room without seeking medical
aid or help. The husband, writhing in unbearable pain from the burn
injuries, was rendered helpless and unable to seek medical assistance
due to the acts of the accused. The intent to cause grievous harm or
even death is apparent from the circumstances.

17. Despite the severity of the offence, an argument was advanced

before this Court that, since the accused is a woman, and wife of the
victim, who was being tortured by him, she should be treated with
leniency and as a victim though no explanation was forthcoming even
during the course of arguments about the conduct of the accused.

18. The argument as above, in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, bring forth, gender biases, whether hidden, conscious, or
unconscious, which are an undeniable reality and not a mere fiction of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 6 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 the mind. Such biases – rooted in societal perceptions, cultural
conditioning, or individual assumptions – often find their way into
arguments advanced before the Courts, where leniency is sought
solely on the basis of the accused‟s gender. However, it is the duty of
the judiciary to remain vigilant and ensure that decisions are not
influenced by such biases where law or judicial precedents specifically
do not so provide.

19. The jurisprudence surrounding the grant of bail is guided by

well-established principles, including the nature of injuries caused, the
conduct of the accused, and the circumstances under which life-
threatening injuries are inflicted. These principles, however, do not
differentiate or lay down different rules for consideration, solely based
on the gender of the victim or the accused. Further, the injuries caused
to the body – whether of a man or a woman – cannot be categorized
differently based on gender.

20. The pain, trauma, and damage resulting from such injuries are
the same, irrespective of the victim‟s gender. The criminal
jurisprudence in India, particularly in cases of life-threatening injuries
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, is gender-
neutral, as reflected in the term “whoever does any act” under the
penal law. Therefore, it would amount to perversity of justice if, in
cases where a woman causes such grievous injuries to a man, she is
treated with leniency solely on account of her gender, despite the
seriousness of the offence.

21. While dealing with this argument, this Court wonders that in

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 7 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 case the roles were reversed, and had the husband poured boiling
water mixed with chilli powder on his wife while she was asleep,
would have locked her inside the room, after doing so, would have
taken her phone and had fled away from the spot, leaving their infant
child crying beside her, it would have been undoubtedly argued that
no mercy should be shown to him. However, the Courts cannot let
hidden or apparent biases guide them while deciding cases even when
arguments full of hidden biases are presented before them.

22. In this Court‟s opinion, the hallmark of fair and just justice
delivery system is to remain gender-neutral while adjudicating cases
of such nature as the present one. In case a woman causes such
injuries, a special class cannot be created for her. Crimes involving the
infliction of life-threatening bodily injuries must be dealt with firmly,
irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman since the
life and dignity of every individual, regardless of gender, are equally
precious.

23. Moreover, the notion that in marital relationships, only women

suffer physical or mental cruelty without exception, may be contrary
to the hard realities of life in many cases. Courts cannot adjudicate the
cases before them, on the basis of stereotypes.

24. The empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot

come at the cost of fairness towards another. Just as women deserve
protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same
safeguards under the law. To suggest otherwise would violate the very
basic principles of equality and human dignity, and this Court cannot

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 8 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical
violence or causing injuries. Creating a special class of leniency for
one gender would erode the foundational principles of justice in cases
of life threatening bodily injuries.

25. This case also highlights a broader societal challenge. Men who
are victims of violence at the hands of their wives often face unique
difficulties, including societal disbelief and the stigma associated with
being perceived as a victim. Such stereotypes perpetuate the erroneous
belief that men cannot suffer violence in domestic relationships. Thus,
the Courts must recognize the need for a gender-neutral approach to
such cases, by ensuring that men and women are treated alike.

26. In the present case, the bail application has to be adjudicated on

the basis of the concrete facts presented before it, including the
statements of witnesses and the medical records. The plight of the
victim, as evident from the medical records and other evidence, must
be the primary consideration in deciding such applications where life
threatening injuries have been caused.

27. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for accused – seeking leniency on the
ground of the accused‟s gender – completely devoid of merit.

28. The other argument that the accused be granted bail since she
has a three month old child to take care of, is also found unmerited in
this case, since it is apparent from the record, from the complaint and
the statement of the witnesses recorded so far, prima facie, that
accused herein had left her three months old daughter crying besides a

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 9 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 badly burnt husband and had locked both of them in the room before
fleeing from the spot with his phone. The daughter is being taken care
of by the victim/husband and his family.

29. The argument regarding there being no motive and false

implication of the accused, to entitle her to anticipatory bail, is also
unmerited, since the record reveals that four days prior to the incident
in question, i.e. on 27.12.2024, the victim husband had lodged a
detailed complaint with the police (running into eight pages) against
her wife for cheating, extortion and forced marriage. Pertinently, in
the said complaint, the victim had mentioned in detail about the
conduct of the accused, including her previous relationships with
several men, a child born out of a previous marriage which she had not
disclosed to the victim herein, the fact that she had filed several cases
under Section 376 of IPC against different persons, etc., which were
not in his knowledge. He had also mentioned his apprehension that his
wife may kill him with the help of her mother and other family
members and he had therefore sought protection from the police.

30. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as

well as the fact that the applicant herein has failed to join
investigation, the recovery of the phone of the victim is to be effected
alongwith the need to confront her with the documents mentioned in
the complaint, considering also the nature of injuries and the manner
in which the injuries were caused, no ground for grant of anticipatory
bail is made out.

31. In view of the above, the present application stands dismissed.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 10 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46
 32. Before parting, this Court clarifies that since the arguments
were addressed in detail, and the learned counsel had specifically
emphasized upon dealing with his contentions, a prima facie finding
had to be given while deciding this application.

33. However, it is clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall

tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

34. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

JANUARY 22, 2025/zp/ns

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 262/2025 Page 11 of 11
By:AANCHAL TAGGAR
Signing Date:23.01.2025
18:31:46