Baptised Sikh woman forced to cook non-veg, wear nose pin: Court denies bail to father-in-law in dowry death case

Justice Rakesh Kainthla denied bail to a father-in-law involved in a dowry death case of a Sikh woman.

Amrit Sanskar (Baptism)

According to Sikh.org, it is a sacred ceremony for baptism in Sikhism, known as Amrit Sanchar, the institution into the Khalsa brotherhood. It was established by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699, involving adoption of Panj Kakke (the Five Ks).

Compelled baptised Sikh to cook non-veg, wear nose pin

• Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria submitted that the woman was harassed by the husband, his parents and sisters for bringing insufficient dowry.
• He added that she belonged to the Sikh religion but was compelled to cook non-vegetarian food and wear a nose pin.
• On April 19, 2025, when her condition had deteriorated, her family was intimated by a neighbour, and when the informant’s family tried taking her to the hospital, her husband and his father (petitioner) quarrelled with them and stopped them.
• It was submitted that the woman died on April 23, 2025, and the police arrested the petitioner and the co-accused.

Petition, non-maintainable

• Advocate Malkit Singh Jandiala, on behalf of the complainants, submitted that the petitioner had a big role in the murder of the woman.
• The bench was told that the petitioner’s family knew that the woman was a baptised Sikh and even then they forced her to cook non-veg food and wear a nose pin; although earlier they had agreed that she could pursue her faith, they did not even allow her to perform religious ceremonies.
• It was contended that when she was hospitalised, she allegedly had tried communicating through signs indicating that her husband’s family forcefully administered poison to her, but her initial statement was changed by the sister-in-law, who works at the dispensary.
• It was argued that the father-in-law had committed a heinous crime and prayed that his plea be dismissed.

Petitioner has roots in society

• Senior Advocate Ajay Kochhar along with advocate Ajeet Ram Poswal contended that the investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. 
• It was submitted that the petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding, and he would abide by the terms and conditions that the court may impose, praying to be released on bail.

‘No relief to father-in-law’

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the court held it should be mindful of the broader social impact in dowry death cases and should not permit the parents-in-law to remain free when the evidence reflects a probable nexus between dowry demand, physical cruelty and the death 

The Himachal Pradesh High Court noted that the father-in-law of the woman was specifically mentioned in the FIR; he, along with the woman’s husband and sisters, harassed the woman for bringing insufficient dowry, and they were compelling her to prepare non-vegetarian food contrary to her faith.

Therefore, prima facie, a presumption under Section 117 (Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) will apply, and the burden would shift upon the petitioner to rebut it.

The court observed that all these allegations indicated the petitioner’s involvement in the offence. It was also noted that when the woman was found unconscious, the informant and his family tried to take her to the hospital, but were allegedly prevented from doing so by her husband and his family members, including the father-in-law.

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that the prosecution was deliberately avoiding the trial, the court said that several witnesses had not been properly served, the case had been listed for evidence only once, stating that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial was not being violated.

Conclusively, the court, in the view of all the contentions and facts, decided that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.