'What's Wrong With Allahabad High Court?': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted In Dowry Death Case

The Supreme Court today questioned the Allahabad High Court for granting bail to a man against whom there are prima facie allegations of dowry death. It cancelled the bail of the accused husband and directed him to surrender within a week. The Court also passed orders for the completion of the trial within a year.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi was hearing a special leave petition filed by the deceased's father challenging the bail granted to the husband by the Allahabad High Court. At the outset, the Court perused the postmortem report, which stated that there were injuries around her neck. When the Court asked the counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, he replied that he would file a counter-affidavit.

Justice Pardiwala said: "With these types of allegations and with the death within seven years, why should you be granted bail? Argue to the point, counsel, don't make flimsy arguments, or we will cancel here and now. You have been charged with an offence of dowry death, and your wife was found dead under suspicious circumstances in your house. There were external injuries on her body. How do you explain the death of your wife?"

Justice Pardiwala then questioned the High Court: "What is wrong with this High Court, we [have] failed to understand. In cases where bail should not be granted, bail is granted."

The State's counsel requested that the Court consider the fact that the accused has spent 18 months in custody. To this, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked: "You something Mr Counsel? This is a case of murder. 304B, yes. She has been strangulated to death; you want us to demonstrate? Come to page 31 [of postmortem report]."

It ordered the cancellation of the bail.

In the order, the Court noted that the marriage was solemnised in February 2019 and the wife's unnatural death took place in July, 2024.

The Court further noted that it is undisputed that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of marriage and that the allegations relate to dowry death. In such circumstances, the High Court ought to have kept in mind the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court also took note of the post-mortem report, which recorded ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

The Court clarified that it does not propose to make any further observations on the merits of the case, as the trial is presently underway and only one witness has been examined so far. However, in the overall circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the impugned order granting bail is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the bail granted to the respondent was cancelled. The respondent was directed to surrender before the jail authorities within one week. The Trial Court has also been directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year.

Previous instances

The Allahabad High Court has frequently come under the scanner of the Supreme Court. Recently, the Justice Pardiwala bench expressed shock at the Allahabad High Court refusing to grant bail to an accused in a murder case who has spent nine years as an undertrial.

The same judge had expressed disappointment when the High Court granted bail in a dowry death case by exercising discretion without considering the prima facie allegations. The High Court Judge then later requested the Chief Justice of the High Court not to assign him bail roster and termed the Supreme Court's criticism as "demoralising".

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had passed the unusual order last year, taking exception to an order passed by another judge of the High Court by which a criminal complaint was refused to be quashed on the ground that a civil remedy for recovery of money was not effective. The bench passed stringent strictures that the criminal jurisdiction must be withdrawn from the said judge till his retirement and that he be made to sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court. Later, at CJI's request, the strictures were recalled.

Other benches have also criticised the High Court for passing mechanical orders in a child trafficking case.