Lawyers call for stronger action on misuse of 498A in Bengaluru techie suicide case, urge reform

₹1.5-cr penalty on society for STP fault: NGT issues notice to Haryana pollution board

January 19, 2025

Delhi High Court Grants Transit Anticipatory Bail To Advocate In Case Involving Dowry and Religious Conversion Allegations

December 22, 2024

Delhi High Court Grants Transit Anticipatory Bail To Advocate In Case Involving Dowry and Religious Conversion Allegations

The Delhi High Court recently granted transit anticipatory bail to an advocate linked to a case involving allegations under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, alongside charges under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case revolves around the advocate’s brother, accused of being involved in the tragic suicide of a woman who was engaged to him. The woman’s father lodged an FIR implicating the brother and his family members

An FIR was registered at Ghaziabad under sections 318(4) (cheating), 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), 123 (causing hurt by means of poison), 69 (sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means), 108 (abetment of suicide), 89 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), and 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS, as well as sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.

The advocate approached the Delhi High Court, seeking a 60-day anticipatory bail period. Advocates Sumit Gehlot and Nikhil Bhalla, representing the petitioner, argued that the advocate’s involvement was limited to drafting a no-objection letter stating that the complainant had no objection to his daughter marrying a muslim boy, which the brother got signed by the complainant. They also emphasized that the suicide occurred at the woman’s own residence.

The court, led by Justice Vikas Mahajan, issued notice on the petition, seeking a response from the opposing parties, and scheduled the next hearing for January 9. However, a critical question arose during the proceedings: could the Delhi High Court grant transit anticipatory bail for an FIR registered in Uttar Pradesh, considering territorial jurisdiction constraints?

The additional standing counsel for the Delhi government referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2024), asserting that the Delhi High Court was empowered to grant such relief. Taking this submission into account, the court granted transit anticipatory bail to the advocate, effective until the next hearing.