![\"HC](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-131490796,imgsize-3010,width-400,height-225,resizemode-72\/gavel-1jpg.jpg\" "\\"Photo")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNew Delhi: Delhi High Court<\/a> has stressed that unnatural death of young married women demands prompt and diligent police investigation, expressing displeasure over a delay of eight months by Delhi Police<\/a> in registering an FIR in a dowry death case.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observations while denying anticipatory bail to the husband and in-laws of the 25-year-old woman within six months of the marriage.The court pointed out that the registration of FIR \u201ctook more time than the entire duration of her marriage\u201d and it was an \u201cunfortunate reality\u201d that the deceased\u2019s father was made to \u201crun from pillar to post\u201d before the FIR was registered following a judicial order.\u201cThe consequences of such delay in lodging the FIR cannot be lightly brushed aside. Cases involving the unnatural death of a young married woman clearly demand prompt and diligent investigation by the police authorities,\u201d the court emphasised. \u201cEvery passing day carries the possibility of loss or disappearance of evidence, fading of witnesses\u2019 memory and erosion of other evidentiary material that may assist in discovering the truth,\u201d it pointed out.According to police, the husband informed the deceased\u2019s father on July 2, 2025, that his daughter was in hospital after a fall from stairs. Upon reaching the hospital, the father, however, suspected foul play. It was subsequently found that the woman killed herself in her matrimonial home. While she died on July 3, 2025, the FIR was registered on Feb 13, 2026, only after the directions of a magisterial court.\u201cOnce the deceased\u2019s parents had raised suspicion against her husband and in-laws, in a case involving the death of a young married woman within a few months of marriage, the matter required a prompt and effective response from the investigating agency,\u201d the court observed.The husband and the in-laws sought pre-arrest bail on the grounds of delay in lodging the FIR and that the deceased\u2019s father did not level any \u201cspecific elaborate allegations\u201d in his first statement given to the executive magistrate.HC, however, said the record prima facie reflected that despite the deceased\u2019s father taking steps to bring the matter to the notice of the authorities at the earliest, no action was taken. This led him to file a case before a magisterial court, where, again, his plea remained pending for a \u201cconsiderable period of time\u201d, it observed.<\/div>\n