Delhi HC grants bail to man who attacked wife inside court, she seeks reunion
Synopsis
A man who attacked his wife inside Delhi court premises was granted bail by the High Court — not because the case was weak, but because his wife withdrew all matrimonial proceedings against him and appeared in person to say she wants to return home. The case puts a spotlight on how complainant withdrawal shapes bail outcomes even in assault cases.
Key Takeaways
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Vijay Kumar , accused of assaulting his wife inside court premises on 28 January 2025 .
The FIR was registered at Dwarka South Police Station under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) .
The complainant appeared in court and stated she did not wish to pursue the case and wanted to resume her matrimonial life.
She had already withdrawn all related cases including divorce and guardianship petitions ; the couple has an 11-year-old son .
Kumar was released on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with conditions including weekly police reporting and a ban on witness contact.
Kumar had previously filed six bail applications before the trial court — four withdrawn, two dismissed — before the High Court granted relief.
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Vijay Kumar, a man accused of attacking his wife inside court premises during a matrimonial dispute, after the complainant herself stated she no longer wished to pursue the case and intended to resume her married life with him. The order was passed on 24 September 2026 by a single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court.
Background of the Case
The FIR against Kumar was registered at Dwarka South Police Station under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following an incident on 28 January 2025. The couple had been involved in matrimonial proceedings and were appearing before a court when an altercation escalated into a physical assault by the husband on his wife — inside the court premises itself. Kumar was arrested on the same day the FIR was lodged.
The case drew attention because the attack took place within a judicial precinct, raising questions about the safety of litigants in ongoing domestic disputes.
The Complainant's Submission
In a significant development, the wife appeared in person before the High Court and submitted that she did not wish to prosecute her husband. She told the court she had already begun visiting his family and wished to return to the matrimonial home once he was released. The court also noted that the couple has an 11-year-old son, and that the wife expressed a desire to resume her matrimonial life peacefully.
The complainant had already withdrawn all matrimonial cases filed against Kumar, including divorce and guardianship petitions. The prosecution, taking note of the wife's no-objection, submitted that it had no objection to the grant of bail.
Why Bail Was Granted
Justice Pushkarna noted the absence of any prior criminal record against Kumar and that the complainant had withdrawn all related matrimonial proceedings. The court observed: 'Accordingly, considering the overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court considers the present to be a fit case for grant of bail.'
Notably, Kumar had earlier moved six bail applications before the trial court — four were withdrawn and two were dismissed — before successfully approaching the High Court.
Bail Conditions Imposed
The court directed Kumar's release on a personal bond of ₹25,000 along with one surety of the same amount. He is required to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing and must furnish both his permanent and current residential addresses. He must report to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9 am and is prohibited from threatening, inducing, or tampering with any person or evidence connected to the case.
Kumar must also keep the mobile number provided to the investigating officer active throughout the trial and cannot change or switch it off without prior notice. The Investigating Officer has been directed to monitor the situation and act on any complaint in accordance with law.
Court's Clarification
Justice Pushkarna clarified that the observations made in the bail order were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would neither influence the trial nor be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. The trial against Kumar is expected to continue before the designated trial court.
Point of View
Effectively sidelining the State's prosecutorial interest. While the court acted within established legal parameters, the case raises a structural concern — when assaults occur inside judicial premises and bail hinges on the victim's stated willingness to reconcile, the system risks conflating reconciliation with exoneration. The six failed bail applications at the trial court level suggest that lower courts were less persuaded, making the High Court's intervention notable. Whether the IO monitoring clause translates into meaningful oversight remains an open question.
NationPress
24 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Delhi High Court grant bail to the man accused of attacking his wife inside court?
The Delhi High Court granted bail primarily because the complainant — the wife — appeared in court and stated she did not wish to pursue the case and wanted to resume her married life. She had also withdrawn all related matrimonial cases, and the prosecution raised no objection to bail.
What was the original charge against Vijay Kumar?
Vijay Kumar was charged under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) following an FIR registered at Dwarka South Police Station on 28 January 2025. He was accused of attacking his wife inside court premises during a matrimonial hearing.
What conditions were attached to Vijay Kumar's bail?
Kumar must furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety, report to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9 am, appear on all trial dates, and keep his registered mobile number active. He is barred from contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.
What matrimonial cases had the wife previously filed?
The wife had filed divorce and guardianship petitions, along with the criminal FIR. She withdrew all of these before approaching the High Court to express her desire to return to the matrimonial home. The couple has an 11-year-old son.
Will the bail order affect the ongoing trial against Kumar?
No. Justice Mini Pushkarna explicitly clarified that the observations in the bail order were made solely for deciding the bail application and would not influence the trial or constitute an opinion on the merits of the case. The trial is expected to continue before the trial court.
