The Supreme Court of India has overturned an order passed by the Allahabad High Court that granted bail to a husband accused in a dowry death case. The Apex Court strongly criticized the High Court’s approach, mandating the accused to surrender immediately and highlighting the lower court’s failure to consider the severity of the crime and the statutory presumptions under the new criminal laws.
Background of the Case
On March 1, 2025, the deceased, Sushma, was married to the accused, Devraj alias Golu. Within three months of the marriage, on April 25, 2025, she died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home. Following her sudden death, her father, Chetram Verma, lodged a First Information Report (FIR No. 188/2025) at the Kotwali Bhinga Police Station, District Shrawasti, Uttar Pradesh.
The informant alleged that despite giving Rs. 3,50,000 in cash as dowry during the marriage, the accused and his family were dissatisfied and demanded a four-wheeler. It was alleged that they subjected his daughter to physical and mental torture. The postmortem examination revealed the cause of death as “asphyxia due to strangulation.” Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and charges were framed under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial is currently pending in the Court of Sessions, Shrawasti (Sessions Case No. 280/2025).
Arguments of the Parties
At the High Court stage, the counsel for the applicant (accused husband) argued that a co-accused, Rambachan, had already been enlarged on bail. The defense further contended that the postmortem report showed the hyoid bone to be intact, arguing that the medical opinion of death by ante-mortem strangulation was not possible as per medical jurisprudence. The State opposed the bail application. Displeased with the High Court’s decision to grant bail, the father of the deceased appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, heavily criticized the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail. The bench noted that the High Court merely recorded the defense’s submission and granted bail solely because the accused had been in jail since April 27, 2025, and had no criminal history.
The Supreme Court expressed its dismay, observing:
“The impugned order is one of the most shocking and disappointing orders that we have come across over a period of time.”
The bench further stated:
“The impugned order has led to travesty of justice.”
The Court outlined that the High Court failed to consider vital factors required for granting bail in a serious crime like a dowry death. Specifically, the High Court ignored the nature of the alleged crime, the stringent punishment provided by the BNS 2023, the husband-wife relationship, the place of the incident, and the postmortem report indicating strangulation.
Crucially, the Supreme Court emphasized the High Court’s failure to account for the statutory presumption of the commission of the offense. The bench quoted Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (erstwhile Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872), which mandates:
“When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and 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, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”
Decision The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim bail order passed by the High Court. Respondent No. 2 (original accused) was directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately, upon which he is to be remanded to judicial custody. The Trial Court was instructed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. Additionally, the Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court, to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Case Details
- Case Title: Chetram Verma vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 770/2026 (Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 19237/2025)
- Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
- Advocates for Appellant: 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.
- Advocates for Respondent: 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.
