The Supreme Court set aside the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to a man accused of causing the dowry death of his wife within three months of marriage, holding that the High Court’s order was “one of the most shocking and disappointing” bail orders it had come across in recent times
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan allowed an appeal filed by the father of the deceased woman and cancelled the bail granted to the accused husband, in connection with an FIR registered at Kotwali Bhinga Police Station, Shrawasti district, Uttar Pradesh, for offences under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
The case relates to the death of a 22-year-old woman who died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home barely three months after her marriage. The FIR lodged by her father alleged persistent dowry demands, including for a four-wheeler, and physical and mental harassment by the husband and his family members. The postmortem examination revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, contradicting the defence claim relied upon by the High Court
While cancelling bail, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the Allahabad High Court for mechanically granting bail without considering the gravity of the offence. The Bench noted that the High Court merely recorded the submissions of the defence and granted bail on the grounds that the accused had no criminal history and had been in custody since April 2025, without examining the seriousness of the allegations or the statutory presumption applicable in dowry death cases
The Court emphasised that, while deciding bail in serious offences like dowry death, courts must consider factors such as the nature of the crime, the punishment prescribed, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the place of occurrence, the postmortem findings, and the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act), which mandates a presumption against the husband where cruelty or harassment for dowry is shown soon before death
Terming the High Court’s order as leading to a “travesty of justice”, the Supreme Court directed the accused to immediately surrender before the trial court, upon which he would be remanded to judicial custody. The Bench also directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously, while clarifying that the guilt or innocence of the accused would be determined solely on the basis of evidence led during trial
The Registry was further directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court for placing it before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate consideration.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.; Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR; Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv.; Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv.; Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv.; Mr. Mohammad Salman Siddiqui, Adv.; Ms. Tasleem Siddiqui, Adv.; Mr. Rajat Baijal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apoorva Agarwal, A.A.G.; Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR; Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Adv.; Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR; Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv.
Mr. Manindera Dubey, Adv.; Ms. Shrishti Gautam, Adv.; Mr. Divyansh Singh, Adv.; Mr. Vikash Singh, Adv.
