The Chandni Agarwal dowry death case took a new turn on Monday, with the Supreme Court admitting an application filed by her father, Joginder Bansal, seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to her in-laws.
Chandni was married into a Calcutta-based family. Her parents live in Ludhiana. She had committed suicide in October 2002 following repeated attempts by her in-laws to extract more dowry.
A division bench of Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Justice S.B. Sinha admitted the application filed by Joginder’s counsel Chanchal Ganguly, and issued notices to Chandni’s in-laws, the Agarwals.
The bench, however, restrained the police from arresting the Agarwals. The judges also allowed the applicant to file his counter-reply to the Agarwals’ contention.
Ganguly said Chandni was “forced to commit suicide” by husband Gaurav and his kin. They had been demanding “exorbitant dowry”.
“Abetting a suicide amounts to murder,” Ganguly said, referring to the role played by Chandni’s in-laws.
Gaurav has been absconding, while his parents and grandfather are on bail. Grandfather M.P. Lohia had obtained anticipatory bail on the grounds of his advanced age (he is 71).
Ever since Chandni was married to the Agarwals, the family had allegedly been demanding “household goods” as dowry. She would often be “tortured” by her husband and his mother, Uma, for not having brought the “expected” articles with her.
Ganguly said the accused had obtained a certificate from two private doctors, stating that Chandni was “mentally disturbed”, to prove that she was driven to suicide by her mental condition.
The certificate, counsel Ganguly said, was obtained four months after her death.
In his application, Chandni’s father alleged that her in-laws were threatening him and his family. Ganguly alleged that they were threatening key witnesses, too.
The application stated that Calcutta High Court, on February 13, had rejected the Agarwals’ plea for anticipatory bail. The court had said the documents produced by the accused, including the medical certificate issued by physicians R.L. Narang and P.N. Shukla, could not be relied upon, since it was obtained after Chandni’s death.
Bansal’s application, instead, urged the Supreme Court bench to rely upon a certificate issued by Jayashri Ray of Shri Shikshayatan College, Calcutta. This certificate states that Chandni was harassed and tortured, “both mentally and physically, by her husband and in-laws to such an extent that she was forced to take her own life”.