New Delhi: A Delhi court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused in a dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust case, observing that it was a “classic” case where the accused married the complainant in 2019, left for the UK shortly thereafter, and never took her back.Additional sessions judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan noted that the accused made no effort to resume matrimonial life for over six years and had allegedly “cheated the complainant by obtaining ex parte divorce from a UK court.”The court observed, “During the past 6 and a half years, the accused applicant made no efforts to live with the complainant and even did not join her in the matrimonial life and took away all the dowry articles given in the marriage and thereafter, cheated the complainant by obtaining ex parte divorce from a UK court.”According to the prosecution, the complainant was able to live with her husband, Ashutosh Lalit Jha, for only about 10 days after marriage before he allegedly returned to the UK for work. She was then left behind at her matrimonial home in Maharashtra, where she allegedly faced harassment by her in-laws over dowry demands.The woman informed the court that despite filing her complaint on June 21, 2024, no meaningful investigation had taken place as Jha had neither joined the probe nor returned her “stridhan” articles after the divorce. The investigating officer also submitted that Jha, who resides in the UK, was issued non-bailable warrants in March 2025 and appeared only through videoconferencing. He allegedly failed to join the investigation even after the latest notice served in Nov 2025.Counsel for Jha argued that he was falsely implicated and could not return to India after leaving for the UK in Dec 2019 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The defence further submitted that the couple solemnised a court marriage in May 2022 to facilitate the complainant’s UK visa process, which failed due to technical reasons, following which Jha obtained an ex parte divorce from a UK court in 2023. Seeking anticipatory bail, the defence claimed the allegations were false and fabricated as the couple had barely lived together.Rejecting the plea, Judge Pradhan held that the accused failed to show any special circumstances warranting anticipatory bail. The court further directed the IO to complete the investigation and file the chargesheet within one month from May 26.
