Can Bail Be Cancelled in Dowry Death Cases When Statutory Presumption Under Section 113B Is Ignored?

LawSikho
November 29, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	Crl.A. No.-005082-005082 – 2025
Diary Number	23581/2025
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Bench	HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
Precedent Value	Binding
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms existing precedent
Type of Law	Criminal Law
Questions of Law	Maintainability of complainant’s appeal under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Applicability of statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act in bail proceedings Parameters for cancellation of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi	A complainant has locus standi to challenge a bail order under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. (R. Rathinam; Brij Nandan Jaiswal). Bail orders can be annulled if perverse, legally untenable, or passed without due regard to material factors (gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, antecedents). In dowry‐death cases, once foundational facts under Section 304B IPC are made out, the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act arises against the accused. Failure to consider this presumption vitiates the bail order. High Courts must balance presumption of innocence against serious social interest and risk of interference with witnesses, particularly in dowry‐death prosecutions. The impugned High Court order, by ignoring Section 113B presumption and gravity of allegations (homicidal poisoning within four months of marriage), was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Judgments Relied Upon	R. Rathinam v. State by DSP Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan State (Delhi Administration) v. Sanjay Gandhi Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi Puran v. Rambilas Dr. Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Viswanath Gupta Neeru Yadav v. State of UP Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) State of Kerala v. Mahesh Pinki v. State of UP State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi Kans Raj v. State of Punjab Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab Baijnath v. State of M.P. Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P. Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Distinction between annulment (legal infirmity) and cancellation (supervening circumstances) of bail under Section 439. Statutory framework of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. and safeguard of personal liberty balanced against public interest. Bail principles: gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, risk of tampering, antecedents (Prahlad Singh Bhati; Puran; Sanjay Gandhi). Statutory presumption of dowry death under Section 113B Evidence Act once ingredients of Section 304B IPC are established (Kans Raj; Rajinder Singh; Baijnath). Societal imperative to curb dowry death and maintain public confidence (Shabeen Ahmad; Social Action Forum).
Facts as Summarised by the Court	The appellant’s daughter married Respondent No. 1 on 22.02.2023; within four months she died by aluminium phosphide poisoning amid allegations of dowry‐related cruelty and demand for a Fortuner. FIR registered on 15.06.2023 under Sections 498A, 304B, 328 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act; only the husband was charge-sheeted. Sessions Court denied bail; High Court granted bail. Appellant father, as complainant, challenged bail in this appeal.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All courts (High Courts, Sessions Courts, Magistrates)
Distinguishes	Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
Follows	State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 INSC 979)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Confirms that a complainant can invoke Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to seek cancellation of bail.
Emphasises mandatory application of statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act in dowry‐death bail proceedings.
Reinforces that High Courts must weigh gravity of offence and prima facie evidence (post-mortem, dying declarations) when granting or cancelling bail.
Clarifies the proximity test for “soon before her death” in Section 304B IPC to trigger Section 113B presumption.
Highlights that ignoring material statutory presumption or failing to apply settled bail jurisprudence renders a bail order perverse and subject to annulment.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Maintainability: Complainant (father) has locus standi under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge bail (R. Rathinam; Brij Nandan Jaiswal).
Bail cancellation framework: Differentiation between annulment (legal infirmity) and cancellation (post-grant developments) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan).
Material factors: Bail orders must consider gravity of offence, prima facie evidence, and risk of tampering (Prahlad Singh Bhati; Puran; Sanjay Gandhi).
Statutory presumption: Once dowry‐death ingredients under Section 304B IPC are met (death within seven years, cruelty soon before death), Section 113B Evidence Act imposes a presumption against the accused (Kans Raj; Rajinder Singh; Baijnath).
Application: The High Court ignored statutory presumption and gravity of homicidal poisoning within four months of marriage; bail order was perverse and legally untenable.
Conclusion: Annulment of bail warranted; accused ordered to surrender.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Father of the deceased)

High Court failed to consider gravity of dowry‐death offence and prima facie evidence (post-mortem abrasion, FSL report of aluminium phosphide).
Statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act applies; mandatory once dowry‐death ingredients satisfied.
Investigation infirm: influential family, delayed arrest, transfer to CB-CID, risk of tampering.
Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia was misplaced and factually distinguishable.

Respondent (Accused Husband)

Bail order was a reasoned discretionary relief; no perversity or illegality.
Initial GD entry did not mention cruelty or dowry demands; FIR filed belatedly (10 days after death).
Key allegations uncorroborated: no call records, co-accused exonerated by final report.
Post-mortem and FSL do not establish administration of poison by accused.
Over 15 months in custody; willing to abide by trial process.

State

Supported complainant: serious offence of dowry death; delay explained by grieving father.
Post-mortem abrasion, FSL report confirm homicidal poisoning.
Witness statements (Section 161 Cr.P.C.) corroborate cruelty and dowry demands.
CB-CID investigation upheld local police findings.

Factual Background

A young woman married on 22.02.2023 allegedly faced dowry demands (Fortuner car) and harassment by her husband and in-laws. On 05.06.2023 she died under suspicious circumstances; post-mortem and FSL confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning. FIR lodged on 15.06.2023 under Sections 498A, 304B, 328 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Only the husband was charge-sheeted; bail was denied by Sessions Court but granted by High Court. The father challenged the bail order in this appeal.

Statutory Analysis

Section 304B IPC: Dowry death within seven years of marriage when cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand.
Section 498A IPC: Criminalises cruelty by husband or relatives, including dowry harassment.
Section 328 IPC: Administration of harmful substances.
Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act: Prohibits dowry demand, punishment provisions.
Section 113B Evidence Act: Mandatory presumption of dowry death once foundational facts under Section 304B IPC are proved.
Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.: Power of High Court/Sessions Court to cancel bail if necessary, invoked by any aggrieved person.

Procedural Innovations

Clarification that a complainant may independently invoke Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel bail.
Emphasis on strict application of statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act in bail cancellation context.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed
🔄 Conflicting Decisions