'HC Hasn't Discussed Anything' : Supreme Court Criticises Patna High Court For Mechanical Bail Order In Dowry Death Case
The Court asked the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the HC's Registrar General, who shall place it before the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court has criticized the Patna High Court for passing a mechanical order of granting bail to the husband in an alleged dowry death case. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi observed that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the gravity of the offence and the materials placed on record indicating prima facie involvement of...
The Supreme Court has criticized the Patna High Court for passing a mechanical order of granting bail to the husband in an alleged dowry death case.
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi observed that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the gravity of the offence and the materials placed on record indicating prima facie involvement of the accused-husband.
“The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion.”, observed the Court, noting that the High Court's reliance on the period of custody undergone by the accused and the delay in examining remaining witnesses, was insignificant, particularly in light of the post-mortem report revealing multiple injuries on the deceased wife's body and the fact that the trial was progressing at a satisfactory pace.
“The High Court in its impugned Order has not discussed anything. All that weighed with the High Court was that the accused was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had been examined till the date the High Court passed the impugned order…The High Court lost sight of many important aspects of the matter, more particularly the post-mortem report indicating number of injuries on the body of the deceased, and the presumption of commission of offence as provided under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.”, the court observed.
Background
The prosecution's case was that post-one and half year of the marriage, the deceased-wife was found dead at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances with external and internal injuries all over her body.
The appellant-deceased's mother lodged an FIR against the Respondent No.2-husband of the deceased for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) respectively.
The cause of death assigned in the post-mortem report was hemorrhage and shock due to head injury. Further, the report endorsed the external injuries on the body.
The accused-husband was granted a bail by the High Court in a second attempt, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the deceased's mother.
Decision
Calling the High Court's approach to be erroneous, the bench observed that the High Court failed to acknowledge the gravity of the offence, and had mechanically passed the bail order, without adverting to the material evidence placed on record, which indicated the involvement of the accused in the commission of an offence.
In support, the Court relied on Shabeen Ahmed v State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278 to reiterate that “where the facts clearly indicate direct involvement (of the accused) in the fatal events, courts must act with an abundance of caution" in granting bail in dowry death cases.
In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the order granting bail to the accused, with a direction to him to surrender within one week.
Further, the Registry was directed to “forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna, who shall in turn place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna.”
Recently, the bench led by Justice Pardiwala had rapped the Allahabad High Court also, saying that an unreasoned order was passed to grant bail in a dowry death case.
Cause Title: LAL MUNI DEVI VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 298
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha., Adv. Ms. Divya Negi, Adv. For M/s.Brajesh Pandey & Associates, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Adv.