The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday recommended an inquiry against a Judicial Officer who granted bail to a husband in a dowry death case, ignoring sufficient material against him as well as the presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

For context, Section 118 BSA provides a statutory presumption in dowry death cases. It says that where a woman dies in circumstances constituting a dowry death and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment over Dowry, the Court shall presume that such person caused the dowry death.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also canceled the bail of the Husband of the deceased. The order was passed on a bail cancellation application filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jalaun at Orai.

Briefly put, the case was registered in 2025 at a Police Station in District Jalaun under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband had earlier secured bail from the district court

Before the High Court, seeking his bail cancellation, it was submitted that the deceased had died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, with ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia.

It was further submitted that there was evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry, despite which the husband was granted bail.

Taking note of these circumstances, the High Court had earlier directed the Additional Sessions Judge to explain how he granted bail to the husband "without assigning any reason and contrary to the presumption of Section 118 of BSA".

In his explanation, Additional Sessions Judge Satish Chandra Dwivedi admitted that there was evidence of harassment because of the demand for dowry against the accused and that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage.

The trial judge further admitted that the presumption was also attracted u/s 118 of BSA. However, he stated that bail had been granted on the ground of parity with the mother-in-law and father-in-law.

High Court's observations

The High Court found that the trial judge's explanation did not justify the grant of bail. Justice Deshwal observed thus:

"…it is absolutely clear that discretion of bail has been arbitrarily exercised by the concerned Judge".

The Court noted that the judge could not justify why he granted bail to the deceased's husband despite "sufficient material against him", the presumption under Section 118 BSA and "even without giving any reason".

The Court remarked that this created suspicion while exercising this discretion. However, the High Court clarified that it was not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge.

"...this court is not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge, however that requires to be investigated through administrative side".

Therefore, it directed that the matter be placed before the Administrative Committee to consider whether an inquiry was required against the Additional Sessions Judge over such "erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power" while releasing the deceased's husband on bail despite sufficient material against him attracting the Section 118 BSA presumption.

Finding the order of the trial court to be "absolutely erroneous", the Court canceled the bail granted to Accused-Satendra alias Sonu and directed him to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within 10 days.

Case title - Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw AB) 652

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 652

Click Here To Read/Download Order