Supreme Court: In an appeal arising from Allahabad High Court’s order dated 27 August 2025 granting bail to the accused (husband of the deceased) in a case involving allegations of dowry death, wherein the complainant, deceased’s father, sought for cancellation of bail, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ., cancelled bail in dowry death case, holding that bail cannot be granted on tenuous grounds such as alleged delay in FIR or superficial reading of cause of death in dowry death cases.
The Court held that in cases involving dowry death, where there exists prima facie evidence of cruelty and death within 7 years of marriage, bail courts must apply statutory presumption under Section 118, Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) [erstwhile Section 113(B), Evidence Act, 1872] and carefully scrutinise material evidence.
Watch | Dowry Deaths & the Law: What Legal Remedies Exist?
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the deceased was married to Respondent 2 on 8 February 2019. According to the prosecution, soon after marriage, the husband and his family began harassing her for dowry. Despite substantial dowry being given, including a car, cash, jewellery, and household articles, the accused allegedly demanded an additional Fortuner car and Rs 10 lakhs.
The FIR narrates persistent cruelty, including physical assault, starvation, and threats of killing the deceased if demands were not met. Under pressure, the complainant transferred Rs 4 lakhs and paid further amounts, yet harassment continued.
Watch | SC: Wife Cannot Be Prosecuted for Giving Dowry Based on Her own complaint
On 11 July 2024, the deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home. Earlier that morning, she had spoken to her father in a distressed condition, stating that she was being beaten and threatened. Later that day, the complainant was informed that the accused had strangulated and hanged the deceased. Her body was found in a hospital with visible injuries, and none of the in-laws were present.
An FIR was lodged on 12 July 2024 at Kavi Nagar Police Station, Ghaziabad, naming 8 accused persons for dowry harassment and murder. Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the husband and his parents under, Sections 80, 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Prohibition Act). The case was pending before the Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad.
The Sessions Court rejected the bail application of the accused. However, the High Court allowed the bail application, primarily relying on alleged delay in lodging the FIR and cause of death being asphyxia due to hanging.
Aggrieved by the grant of bail, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking cancellation of the same.
Issue for Determination
-
Whether the High Court erred in granting bail in a case involving serious allegations of dowry death?
-
Whether delay in FIR and cause of death justified grant of bail?
-
Whether the High Court failed to consider statutory presumptions under Section 118 BSA and material evidence?
Analysis
The Court emphasised that while considering bail, courts must examine the gravity of the crime and existence of a prima facie case. It noted that the FIR disclosed “more than a prima facie case” of dowry harassment and death within 7 years of marriage. It further noted that the High Court failed to consider Section 118 BSA, which mandates presumption of dowry death where cruelty or harassment for dowry is shown “soon before death”.
The Court held that the High Court committed an “egregious error” in granting bail, particularly given the serious nature of the offence and the statutory presumptions under Section 118 BNS.
The Court found that there was no delay in filing of the FIR. The death occurred on 11 July 2024, and FIR was lodged the very next day. Even assuming delay, the Court questioned whether such delay could justify bail in a grave offence like dowry death.
“Where is the delay in the registration of the FIR. Assuming for the moment that there was some delay in lodging the FIR, should that by itself in a serious crime like dowry death be a ground to release the accused on bail?”
The Court noted that the post-mortem report records multiple ante-mortem injuries, including, ligature mark around the neck and multiple contusions and abrasions and these findings prima facie suggested strangulation. It observed that the cause of death being asphyxia due to strangulation would be examined during trial, but the material clearly indicated serious allegations. The Court expressed concern that the High Court neither properly appreciated facts nor examined the post-mortem report, leading to an erroneous grant of bail.
Making strong observations on the societal menace of dowry deaths, the Court noted that a young girl gets married with many dreams, like to live a happy marital life, for love and affection from her husband and husband’s family members, to raise a family but she “does not get married to be killed mercilessly at her matrimonial home for want of dowry”. It highlighted alarming statistics, including a total of 6156 people lost their lives in dowry death cases in 2023; Uttar Pradesh topping the chart with 2122 deaths, followed by Bihar with 1143; in 833 murder cases across the country in 2023, dowry was listed as the motive.
The Court cautioned the bail court to remain very careful to ensure that “its order like the one impugned before us should not be seen or read by the society at large that the courts are taking serious crimes against women very lightly”.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order granting bail was unsustainable in law. It cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender within 1 week. It directed the trial court to complete the trial within 1 year. It was clarified that observations made were only for bail purposes and shall not influence the trial.
[Mahesh Chand v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 793, decided on 30-4-2026]
