Terming dowry deaths a “profound disgrace” and a “severe violation of human rights,” the Supreme Court has set aside a Patna High Court order that granted bail to a man accused of killing his wife. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that despite legal prohibitions, the “greed-driven” practice continues to result in the unnatural deaths of thousands of women across the country.
The Supreme Court was hearing a challenge against a Patna High Court order that had released an accused man on bail in a dowry death case. The apex court found the High Court’s exercise of discretion “wholly unsustainable,” noting that it had overlooked critical evidence, including the post-mortem report. Consequently, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and ordered the accused to surrender immediately.
The case involves the death of a woman on September 1, 2024, at her matrimonial home. At the time of the incident, she had been married to the accused for only one and a half years. The woman was found dead under suspicious circumstances, with the post-mortem report detailing both external and internal injuries all over her body. The official cause of death was cited as hemorrhage and shock resulting from a head injury.
The accused moved the Patna High Court for bail, which was granted on the grounds that he was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had been examined by the trial court.
Counsel appearing for the accused argued that the case was one of suicide rather than murder. They submitted that the deceased was not in a “stable state of mind” and allegedly jumped from the sixth floor of a building.
Conversely, the prosecution pointed to the timing of the death—well within the seven-year threshold for dowry death presumptions—and the nature of the injuries found on the body, which contradicted the claim of a simple suicide without foul play or provocation.
The Supreme Court bench expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s brief order, noting that it failed to discuss the gravity of the crime or the specific evidence on record.
“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,” the bench remarked.
The Court emphasized the broader social implications of the case, stating:
“Dowry deaths are indeed a profound disgrace and a major social evil representing a severe violation of human rights and dignity. Despite the legal prohibitions, this practice continues to result in the unnatural deaths of thousands of women, often through murder or driven to suicide because of greed-driven demands for money or valuables from the groom’s family. Dowry deaths are a severe blot on society.”
The justices further noted that in “very serious crimes” like dowry deaths, High Courts must exercise extreme caution and careful discretion before granting bail.
Finding the High Court’s order lacked proper reasoning and ignored the “suspicious circumstances” and physical injuries recorded, the Supreme Court ruled that the bail deserved to be cancelled.
“We are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled and the respondent No.2 – accused should be directed to surrender before the jail authorities. We order accordingly,” the Court concluded.
