Allahabad HC cancels husband’s bail in dowry death case.

The Allahabad High Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused in the dowry death of his wife, holding that the trial court had exercised its discretion "arbitrarily" despite sufficient material against him and the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) [Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872].

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also directed the high court's administrative committee to consider whether an inquiry was required against Satish Chandra Dwivedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun, over what the high court described as an "erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power" in granting bail to the deceased's husband.

Section 118 of BSA provides that 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.

Why did the high court cancel the bail?

The case concerns Satendra alias Sonu, the husband of the deceased, who had been granted bail on December 3, 2025, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jalaun at Orai. The prosecution case was registered at Sirsakalaar police station under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (earlier Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The deceased had died within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances. The material before the court indicated ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia. The applicant, Seema Devi, argued that there was also evidence that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty over the non-fulfilment of a dowry demand soon before her death.

The high court had earlier taken note of these circumstances and, on July 6, 2026, directed the trial judge to explain how he had granted bail to the husband without assigning reasons and despite the presumption under Section 118 of the BSA.

What did the trial judge say in his explanation?

The Additional Sessions Judge, Satish Chandra Dwivedi, admitted that there was evidence of harassment on account of dowry and that the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage.

He also accepted that, in view of these facts, the presumption under Section 118 of the BSA was attracted. Despite this, he said he had granted bail to the husband on the ground of parity with the deceased's mother-in-law and father-in-law.

The high court was not persuaded by this explanation. It said that the bail order, read with the trial judge's explanation, made it "absolutely clear" that the discretion to grant bail had been exercised arbitrarily.

What did the high court say about the trial judge?

The high court noted that the trial judge "could not justify" why he had granted bail to the husband despite sufficient material against him and the presumption under Section 118 BSA.

It further observed that the bail had been granted "even without giving any reason" and said this "creates suspicion while exercising this discretion".

However, court made it clear that it was not expressing any view about the integrity of the trial judge. Instead, it said the circumstances required examination on the administrative side.

Court therefore directed that the matter be placed before the administrative committee to consider whether an inquiry should be conducted against the judge regarding the manner in which he exercised his power while releasing the deceased's husband on bail.

The high court ultimately held that the December 3, 2025 bail order was "absolutely erroneous" and cancelled the husband's bail. It directed him to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within 10 days. The bail cancellation application was accordingly allowed.

Case title: Smt Seema Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court

Order date: September 1, 2026

Tags: