'Most Shocking & Disappointing', Supreme Court Raps Allahabad High Court For Unreasoned Bail In Dowry Death Case
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Allahabad High Court for passing an unreasoned bail order in a dowry death case without advertence to the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications.
The High Court had granted bail to the husband of the deceased victim by merely recording in the order sheet his period of incarceration, and absence of a criminal history, which the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan described as one of the "most shocking and disappointing orders that it has come across over a period of time."
“We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey. 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. 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. Accordingly, bail came to be granted.”, the court noted.
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was married to the accused and within three months of marriage, the deceased is alleged to have died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home during the midnight hours.
The Court observed that the post-mortem report unequivocally indicated that the victim's death was caused by strangulation and that the incident occurred within three months of the marriage. In such circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the BNSS stood attracted. However, the High Court granted bail without adequately considering this presumption or evaluating other relevant factors, including the gravity and nature of the offence, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and the place of occurrence.
“It was expected of the High Court to consider the bail application keeping in mind:-
(i) The nature of the alleged crime;
(ii) The punishment provided by the BNS 2023 for the alleged crime;
(iii) The relations between the accused and the deceased, i.e., being husband and wife;
(iv) The place where the incident occurred;
(v) 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, erstwhile Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872.”, the court observed.
Accordingly, the bail was cancelled, and the accused-Respondent No.2 was directed to surrender.
Also, the copy of the order was directed to be placed before the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice.
Notably, last year, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala had issued a stern order against the Allahabad High Court in a separate case, even directing the Chief Justice of the High Court to refrain from assigning criminal matters to the concerned judge who had declined to dismiss a criminal case on the flawed reasoning that a related civil suit was ineffective. Also, in another criminal matter, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala expressed displeasure with an order of the Allahabad High Court, which declined to suspend the fixed-term sentence without applying the settled position of law on sentence suspension.
Cause Title: CHETRAM VERMA VERSUS STATE OF U.P.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 141
Appearance:
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.