Baptised Sikh woman forced to cook non-veg, wear nose pin: Court denies bail to father-in-law in dowry death case (original) (raw)
The woman was being harassed by her husband and his family for insufficient dowry.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied bail to a man accused of dowry demand and subjecting his baptised Sikh daughter-in-law to cruelty, noting that she was allegedly forced to cook non-veg food and wear a nose pin by her in-laws against her religious beliefs, ultimately leading to her death by suicide.
Justice Rakesh Kainthala noted that the late woman was not permitted to perform religious ceremonies, and was subjected to adverse remarks over her choice of attire.
“She was forced to cook non-vegetarian food and wear a nose pin contrary to her religious tenets. Therefore, prima facie, a presumption under Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) will apply, and the burden would shift upon the petitioner to rebut it,” the June 5 order noted.
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.
Story continues below this ad
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.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights. She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life. Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach. Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More