Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan set aside the Allahabad High Court’s bail order granted to the deceased woman’s husband in a dowry death case, directing him to surrender immediately, be remanded to judicial custody, and for the trial to proceed expeditiously. The Court found the High Court’s order to be unreasoned, noting it proceeded largely on the accused’s custody period and lack of criminal antecedents, and observed that it was “one of the most shocking and disappointing orders that we have come across over a period of time.” The allegations relate to a death at the matrimonial home within three months of marriage amid claims of dowry-related harassment, with the postmortem recording asphyxia due to strangulation.

According to the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, his daughter was married to the accused and substantial dowry, including cash, was given at the time of marriage. It was alleged that the accused and his family demanded an additional four-wheeler and subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment. Within three months of marriage, the deceased died at her matrimonial home during the night. The postmortem examination recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Union Government, National Medical Commission On Plea Seeking To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed against the accused. One prosecution witness, the father of the deceased, had been examined. The High Court granted bail primarily on the ground that the accused had been in custody since April 2025 and had no criminal history. The complainant-father challenged the grant of bail before the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that “The impugned order is one of the most shocking and disappointing orders that we have come across over a period of time.” It further observed, “We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey.”

While examining the approach adopted by the High Court, the Court stated, “What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death.”

The Court recorded, “What did the High Court do? All that the High Court did, was to record the submission of the defense counsel and thereafter proceeded to observe that the accused was in jail since 27.07.2025 and there being no criminal history, he was entitled to bail.”

The Bench clarified, “We do not propose to observe anything on merits because we are conscious of the fact that the trial is in progress.” At the same time, the Court stated, “However, at the same time, we are sure that the impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in law.”

The Court further observed, “The impugned order has led to travesty of justice.” It recorded that the High Court was expected to consider relevant factors, stating that bail ought to have been examined keeping in mind “the nature of the alleged crime; the punishment provided by the BNS 2023 for the alleged crime; the relations between the accused and the deceased, i.e., being husband and wife; the place where the incident occurred; the postmortem report indicating that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and most importantly, the statutory presumption of commission of offence as envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.”

While reproducing the statutory provision, the Court recorded that Section 118 mandates that “the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death” where it is shown that “soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry.”

Also Read: PwD Recruitment Must Follow RPwD Act Reservation Framework, Executive Resolutions Cannot Override Statute: Patna High Court

The Court directed, “The respondent no.2 (original accused) is directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately.” It further ordered, “Upon his surrender, he shall be remanded to judicial custody.”

The Bench directed, “The Trial Court shall proceed further with the trial expeditiously.” It clarified, “the innocence or the guilt of the accused shall be determined on the basis of the oral evidence that may come on record in the course of the trial. The interim order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside.” and recorded, “With the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.”

“Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Allahabad, who in turn shall place this order before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Advocate; Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR; Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Advocate; Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Advocate; Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Advocate; Mr. Mohammad Salman Siddiqui, Advocate; Ms. Tasleem Siddiqui, Advocate; Mr. Rajat Baijal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Apoorva Agarwal, A.A.G.; Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR; Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR; Mr. Yatharth Singh, Advocate; Mr. Manindera Dubey, Advocate; Ms. Shrishti Gautam, Advocate; Mr. Divyansh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Vikash Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Chetram Verma v. State of U.P.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 770/2026

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan