The present case revolves around a bail application filed by the petitioner, Ms Jyoti alias Kittu, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 04/2025 registered at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi. The petitioner stands accused of inflicting severe injuries on her husband, Mr Suraj, by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on him.
The case brings to light allegations of violence within a marital relationship and raises pertinent questions about gender neutrality in adjudication.
Case Title: Jyoti Alias Kittu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Court: High Court of Delhi
Citation: Bail Application 262/2025
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Judgment on: 22nd January 2025
Background Facts:
On 01.01.2025, the police received multiple PCR calls regarding an incident at a residence in Nangloi, Delhi. The complainant, Mr Vishal (the landlord’s son), informed the police that his tenant, Mr Suraj, had been grievously injured by burns caused by boiling water mixed with chilli powder. The victim’s wife, Jyoti, was alleged to have fled the premises after locking the victim in the room with their crying three-month-old daughter.
The victim’s statement revealed that Jyoti had poured boiling water mixed with chilli powder on his face, neck, chest, and eyes while he was asleep. Subsequently, she locked the room from outside, took his mobile phone to prevent him from seeking help, and absconded. The victim was rescued by the landlord’s son, who heard his cries for help.
The FIR also mentioned that the victim had filed a police complaint four days before the incident, alleging that Jyoti had threatened him with dire consequences after he discovered evidence of her alleged previous marriages, relationships, and false complaints of rape against others. The victim claimed that he was coerced into marrying Jyoti under the threat of false complaints against him and his family.
Arguments Advanced by the Parties:
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, through her counsel, argued that she was falsely implicated and herself a victim of domestic violence. She alleged that the victim had been communicating with other women, leading to disputes between them.It was contended that she was a mother of a three-month-old child, and her custodial arrest would adversely affect the child’s welfare.The petitioner’s counsel highlighted her vulnerabilities as a woman and sought leniency, asserting that she acted out of frustration rather than with criminal intent.
Contentions by the State:
The learned APP argued that the petitioner’s actions were premeditated, as evidenced by her taking boiling water mixed with chilli powder to cause grievous harm to the victim while he was asleep.The prosecution emphasized the victim’s statement and medical records, which detailed the severe injuries sustained. The petitioner’s act of locking the victim in the room and fleeing with his phone demonstrated her intent to cause maximum harm.The State also presented details of the petitioner’s past conduct, including prior complaints of rape against other individuals and the concealment of her previous marriages and a child from the victim.
Court’s Observations and Analysis:
Nature and Gravity of the Offence:
The Court noted that the injuries sustained by the victim were severe and life-threatening. The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) confirmed burns on the victim’s face, neck, chest, and arms. The intentional act of pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder, locking the victim in the room, and absconding with his phone demonstrated a clear intent to cause grievous harm or even death.
Gender Neutrality in Judicial Decision-Making:
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that judicial decisions must remain gender-neutral, particularly in cases involving acts of violence or life-threatening injuries. The Court rejected the argument for leniency based on the petitioner’s gender, asserting that crimes involving bodily harm must be adjudicated uniformly, regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female.
The judgment addressed societal biases, highlighting that men too can be victims of domestic violence. The Court observed that granting leniency solely based on gender would undermine the principles of equality and justice.
Conduct of the Petitioner:
The Court found that the petitioner’s actions were not only intentional but also aggravated by her attempts to prevent the victim from seeking help. Her absconding after the incident and failure to join the investigation further weakened her case.
Impact on the Child:
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument regarding the welfare of her three-month-old child, noting that she had abandoned the child with her injured husband and fled. The victim and his family were now caring for the child.
Victim’s Allegations of Coercion and Misrepresentation:
The Court took cognizance of the victim’s allegations that he was coerced into marriage under the threat of false complaints. The victim had also reported discovering evidence of the petitioner’s previous relationships, marriages, and a child born from a prior union, which were allegedly concealed from him.
Prima Facie Case Against the Petitioner:
The Court concluded that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the petitioner. The evidence, including the victim’s statement, medical records, and the petitioner’s conduct, indicated a well-planned and deliberate act of violence.
Key Legal Principles Highlighted:
I) Gender Neutrality in Criminal Jurisprudence:
The judgment reinforced the principle that justice must be impartial and free from gender biases. Acts of violence should be addressed uniformly, ensuring that neither gender is unfairly privileged or disadvantaged.
II) Balancing Rights and Responsibilities:
While acknowledging the need to protect women from domestic violence, the Court emphasized that men too are entitled to legal safeguards. The empowerment of one gender cannot come at the cost of fairness to the other.
III) Consideration of Evidence in Bail Applications:
The Court reiterated that the grant of bail depends on the nature and gravity of the offence, the conduct of the accused, and the evidence presented. In cases involving life-threatening injuries, courts must prioritize the victim’s plight over unfounded pleas for leniency.
Judgment:
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application, holding that her actions demonstrated a clear intent to cause grievous harm.The petitioner’s failure to join the investigation, coupled with the need for further inquiry into her conduct, precluded the grant of anticipatory bail.The Court underscored that decisions in such cases must remain gender-neutral and guided solely by the principles of justice and fairness.
Significance of the Judgment:
This case highlights the importance of maintaining a gender-neutral approach in adjudicating cases of domestic violence. It challenges societal stereotypes that portray men solely as aggressors and women solely as victims, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under the law.
The judgment also underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding the principles of justice and equality, ensuring that decisions are based on evidence and merit rather than biases or stereotypes.
