‘Dowry Deaths Are a Social Crime’: Supreme Court Sets Aside Allahabad HC Bail Order

The Supreme Court on November 28, 2025 cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of causing the dowry-related death of his wife within four months of their marriage, setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had released him from custody. Directing that he surrender immediately, the bench held that the High Court failed to consider crucial material, including dying declarations, forensic findings and the statutory presumption governing dowry deaths.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in case of dowry death would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Court observed that dowry deaths represent one of the most abhorrent manifestations of the social evil of dowry, noting that the practice has corroded the sanctity of marriage and reduced it to a commercial transaction. It said dowry perpetuates systemic oppression of women and, when resulting in the death of a young bride, ceases to be a private tragedy and becomes a grave social crime that violates the guarantees of equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misunderstood the legal position by treating the matter as an ordinary bail application.

According to the bench, the High Court ignored the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, overlooked the proximity between the alleged dowry harassment and the death, and failed to consider corroborated dying declarations, medical evidence and the FSL report confirming aluminium phosphide poisoning.

It said the High Court granted bail mechanically, without engaging with the material showing that the death occurred within four months of marriage amid allegations of continuous dowry-related cruelty, thus rendering the order perverse.

The case concerns the death of Aastha @ Saarika, who married the accused on February 22, 2023. Her father alleged that she was subjected to persistent harassment soon after her wedding, including the demand for a Fortuner car, and was repeatedly threatened and abused. She died on June 5, 2023, after allegedly being administered a foul-smelling substance. A post-mortem examination noted an abrasion on her left forearm, and the viscera examination later confirmed the presence of aluminium phosphide poison.

The deceased’s elder sister told investigators that around 1.30 am on the intervening night of June 4–5, the young woman telephoned her in distress, crying and pleading for help. The complainant stated that the deceased repeated the allegation at the hospital, saying that her husband and in-laws had forced her to consume the “smelly substance".

Statements from the father, mother and sisters recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC reiterated allegations of dowry-related cruelty, which the Supreme Court said prima facie established the foundational facts required to invoke Section 304B IPC and the statutory presumption under Section 113B.

An FIR was registered on June 15, 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 120B and 328 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police later filed a chargesheet only against the husband, leaving out the other named in-laws.

The Supreme Court noted that there were delays and deficiencies in the initial investigation, leading to its transfer to the CB-CID following a representation by the complainant. Despite this, the High Court granted bail to the husband on January 9, 2025, after an earlier rejection by the Sessions Court.

The apex court held that the High Court erroneously granted bail to the accused by observing that at the stage of bail only prima facie satisfaction is required, and that an elaborate evaluation of the merits of the case should be avoided. The HC had invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and noted that there was no material to suggest that the accused was likely to abscond or tamper with witnesses.

Allowing the father’s appeal, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender immediately, with a further direction that authorities must take him into custody if he fails to do so.

Case Title: Yogendra Pal Singh Vs Raghvendra Singh @ Prince And Another 

Judgment Date: November 28, 2025

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan