Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Parents-in-Law in Dowry Death Case, Citing Strong Evidence of Strangulation and Harassment, While Upholding Bail for Sisters-in-Law Due to Lesser Role and Personal Circumstances

1. Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court canceled the bail granted to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, holding that there was strong prima facie evidence indicating their involvement in the crime. However, the Court upheld the bail granted to the sisters-in-law, citing their lesser role and personal circumstances. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings, and the parents-in-law were instructed to surrender immediately, failing which they would be taken into custody.

2. Facts:

• The case originates from an FIR registered at a police station in Uttar Pradesh under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• The deceased was married in February 2022 and found dead in her matrimonial home in January 2024, well within the seven-year timeframe that triggers the presumption of dowry death under Section 304B IPC.
• The post-mortem examination revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries and a ligature mark around the neck, with the cause of death recorded as “asphyxia due to strangulation,” ruling out suicide.
• The deceased’s brother filed the complaint, alleging that his sister’s in-laws had been continuously demanding dowry, including a motorcycle (which was provided) and later a car (which was not provided due to financial constraints).
• The victim was allegedly subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty by her in-laws.
• The victim’s father received a phone call from the father-in-law on the day of the incident, asking him to come immediately. Upon arrival, they found the deceased hanging from a ceiling fan, with her knees still resting on the bed—raising serious doubts about whether it was a case of suicide.
• The Sessions Court denied bail to the accused, citing strong evidence of dowry-related harassment and unnatural death.
• The High Court granted bail to the accused, reasoning that they had no prior criminal records and that some of them were women.

3. Issues:

1. Did the High Court err in granting bail to the accused despite the seriousness of the allegations?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the dowry-related harassment and death?
3. What approach should courts take in granting bail in dowry death cases?

4. Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The prosecution argued that the High Court failed to properly assess the gravity of the allegations while granting bail.
• Medical evidence suggested forced strangulation, making the High Court’s decision to grant bail questionable.
• The in-laws continued to demand dowry even after receiving a motorcycle and became aggressive when their demand for a car was denied.
• The deceased was subjected to physical violence, and the post-mortem revealed multiple injuries inconsistent with suicide.
• The trial court had correctly denied bail because of strong material evidence against the accused.

5. Respondent’s Arguments:

• The accused had no prior criminal record, which justified bail.
• The sisters-in-law had minimal involvement, and one of them was recently married, while the other was still studying.
• The father-in-law calling the deceased’s family suggested that they were not involved in the crime.
• The High Court had considered relevant factors, such as the accused being women and the fact that some co-accused had already been granted bail.

6. Analysis of the Law:

The case involves two major legal provisions:

• Section 304B IPC (Dowry Death) presumes that if a woman dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, and there is evidence of dowry-related harassment, the husband or in-laws are presumed guilty unless they prove otherwise.
• Section 498A IPC penalizes cruelty by a husband or in-laws.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act criminalize the act of demanding or giving dowry.
• The Supreme Court has emphasized in previous rulings that in cases involving the unnatural death of a woman due to dowry harassment, courts must adopt a stricter approach while granting bail.

7. Precedent Analysis:

The Supreme Court cited Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768, which highlighted key factors to consider when granting bail in serious criminal cases:

1. The nature and gravity of the allegations.
2. The role attributed to the accused in the crime.
3. The likelihood of tampering with evidence.
4. The impact on society if bail is granted.
5. Whether the trial can proceed fairly if the accused remain free.

The Court reaffirmed that bail should be canceled if:

• The lower court ignored relevant material while granting bail.
• The gravity of the offence was not adequately considered.
• The order was mechanical or perverse.

8. Court’s Reasoning:

• The father-in-law and mother-in-law played a key role in the dowry demands and harassment.
• The post-mortem findings contradicted the suicide claim, strengthening the case for dowry-related murder.
• The High Court had failed to give due weight to these factors while granting bail.
• The sisters-in-law, though implicated, had a relatively minor role, and their bail was upheld due to their personal and educational circumstances.
• The Court emphasized the importance of sending a strong societal message against dowry deaths and ensuring judicial scrutiny in such cases.

9. Conclusion:

• Bail for the father-in-law and mother-in-law was canceled due to substantial evidence of their involvement.
• The sisters-in-law were allowed to remain on bail, though they were not absolved of charges.
• The trial court was instructed to expedite proceedings, ensuring a fair trial without undue delays.
• The Supreme Court reinforced the need for stricter scrutiny in dowry death cases, ensuring justice for victims and preventing the normalization of such crimes.

10. Implications:

• The ruling sets a precedent for lower courts to be more cautious in granting bail in dowry death cases.
• It reinforces that bail should not be granted mechanically without assessing the gravity of the allegations.
• It deters dowry-related harassment by making it clear that the courts will adopt a strict approach in such cases.
• The decision safeguards public faith in the judiciary, emphasizing that justice must be seen as well as done.

Also Read – Supreme Court Strikes Down Split Multiplier in Motor Accident Compensation, Restores Tribunal’s Award with Uniform Multiplier and Future Prospects