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 Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established principles governing bail cancellation; annuls High Court bail order |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Bail Jurisprudence; Dowry Death) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | R. Rathinam v. State by DSP; Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal; State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan; 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; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement; 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.; Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent No. 1 was accused of dowry death of his wife—married on 22.02.2023—who died on 05.06.2023 of aluminium phosphide poisoning within four months of marriage. The deceased’s dying declarations and family testimonies alleged persistent dowry demands and forcible administration of poison. FIR under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B, 328 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was registered on 15.06.2023; chargesheet filed only against the husband. Sessions Court denied bail; Allahabad High Court granted bail; this appeal challenges that decision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Distinguishes | Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022 INSC 690); Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595) |
| Follows | State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025 INSC 979); Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000 5 SCC 207) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Complainant has locus standi under Section 439(2) CrPC to seek cancellation of bail granted to accused.
- Bail cancellation must factor in the statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act at the bail stage in dowry‐death cases.
- High Courts must assess the gravity of offences under Section 304B IPC, the strength of prima facie evidence (dying declarations, FSL report, post-mortem findings) and risk of witness tampering.
- Failure to apply these factors or to record reasons renders bail orders perverse and subject to annulment.
- Supreme Court reaffirms that individual liberty yields when it conflicts with societal interest in curbing the social evil of dowry deaths.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Maintainability and Locus Standi
Section 439(2) CrPC empowers any aggrieved party, including the complainant, to seek cancellation of bail (R. Rathinam; Brij Nandan Jaiswal). - Principles Governing Bail Cancellation
Distinction between grant and cancellation of bail (Section 439(2), 437(5) CrPC; State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan). Cancellation justified for perverse orders, failure to apply mind to gravity, evidence, antecedents (Prahlad Singh Bhati; Puran; Neeru Yadav). - Factual and Evidential Matrix
Wife died by aluminium phosphide poisoning within four months of marriage; corroborated by PM and FSL reports and dying declarations. Delay of 104 days in arrest; investigation transferred to CB-CID upon appellant’s representation. - Statutory Presumption in Dowry Death Cases
Section 304B IPC requires death within 7 years preceded by cruelty/dowry demands; Section 113B Evidence Act raises presumption of culpability once ingredients are met. “Soon before” interpreted by proximity test without fixed time limits (Kans Raj; Rajinder Singh; Baijnath). - High Court’s Error and Conclusion
High Court granted bail ignoring Section 113B presumption, gravity of allegations and risk of trial interference. Bail order deemed perverse; annulled to uphold established jurisprudence and societal interest.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Father of Deceased)
- Deceased died of homicidal poisoning within four months of marriage amid persistent dowry demands including a Fortuner.
- Post-mortem and FSL confirm aluminium phosphide; PM noted ante-mortem abrasion.
- Delay in arrest (104 days) and exoneration of in-laws indicate investigative deficiencies and risk of tampering.
- High Court ignored statutory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act and gravity of offence; bail must be cancelled.
Respondent No. 1 / Accused (Husband)
- High Court’s well-reasoned bail order free from perversity or illegality; appeal not maintainable without gross injustice.
- FIR lodged belatedly (10 days, after last rites); initial GD entry omitted dowry/call allegations.
- Co-accused exoneration and absence of independent corroboration weaken prosecution’s case.
- No direct evidence that poison was administered by accused; issue for trial.
- Has served over 15 months in custody; will cooperate with trial.
State (Prosecution)
- FIR supported by statements under Section 161 CrPC, medical and FSL reports.
- Delay in FIR due to appellant’s shock after daughter’s death.
- Investigation transferred to CB-CID reaffirmed local findings.
- Seriousness of offences (dowry death, cruelty, poisoning) demands cancellation of bail.
Factual Background
Appellant’s daughter married Respondent No. 1 on 22.02.2023, and allegedly faced harassment and dowry demands by her husband and in-laws. On 05.06.2023, she collapsed at home, was admitted to hospital, and died en route; post-mortem and FSL confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning. FIR under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B, 328 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act was registered on 15.06.2023 after a delay; chargesheet filed only against the husband. The Sessions Court denied bail, the Allahabad High Court granted bail, and this appeal challenges that grant.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 304B IPC defines dowry death where a married woman dies within seven years of marriage “otherwise than under normal circumstances” and was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before death for dowry demands.
- Section 498A IPC penalises cruelty by husband or relatives, including dowry harassment.
- Section 113B Evidence Act mandates a rebuttable presumption of dowry death once foundational facts (death within seven years, cruelty for dowry soon before death) are proved.
- CrPC Sections 437(5), 439(2) empower courts to cancel bail where necessary.
- “Soon before” engages a proximity test determined by factual circumstances, not a fixed time frame (Kans Raj; Rajinder Singh).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reinforces established bail cancellation and dowry‐death jurisprudence under Sections 304B IPC, 113B Evidence Act, and CrPC bail provisions.