Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently said it is unfortunate that in today’s society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and courts are duty-bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: "When a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness".

"A superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives," the bench said.

The court cancelled the bail granted to the father-in-law and mother-in-law in a case of dowry death.

Shabeen Ahmad, the brother of the deceased, filed four separate appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court's orders granting bail to the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law in an FIR lodged on January 23, 2024, under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

Shahida was married on February 7, 2022, to Accused No.1, Sami Khan (husband of the deceased). Shortly after the marriage, the family members of her matrimonial home—namely, Accused No.2 (Mukhtar Ahmad, father-in-law), Accused No.3 (Tara Bano, mother-in-law), Accused No.4 (Saba, sister-in-law), and Accused No.5 (Ayasha, sister-in-law)—began demanding additional dowry.

According to the FIR, the in-laws first demanded a “Bullet” motorcycle, which the appellant ultimately provided in the name of the deceased.

Thereafter, they allegedly demanded a car, but the appellant, due to financial constraints, sought additional time. It is alleged that because these dowry demands were not completely met, the deceased was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty by Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5, as well as by her husband (Accused No.1), who resided abroad at the relevant time.

The FIR further recounted that on January 22, 2024, around 6:15 p.m., the father of the appellant received a phone call from Accused No.2 (Mukhtar Ahmad, father-in-law) asking him to come immediately. When the appellant, his father, mother, and other relatives reached the matrimonial home, they allegedly found the deceased’s body with a dupatta around her neck, tied to the ceiling fan, and her knees still resting on the bed. Upon being informed, the local police arrived, took photographs, and recorded the occurrence in the General Diary.

A post-mortem was conducted on January 23, 2024, by a panel of doctors. The report documented multiple ante-mortem injuries, including traumatic contusions on the head and neck, as well as a prominent ligature mark around the neck. Crucially, the cause of death was recorded as “Asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation,” suggesting forced strangulation and ruling out suicide.

Allowing the appeal, the bench said, "Stricter judicial scrutiny is necessary in matters where a young woman loses her life in her matrimonial home so soon after marriage, particularly where the record points to persistent harassment over unmet dowry demands."

The court pointed out that equally alarming is the fact that the deceased’s final moments appeared to have involved intense violence, evidenced by multiple contusions and injuries that are inconsistent with a mere case of suicide.

"In dowry-death cases, courts must be mindful of the broader societal impact, given that the offence strikes at the very root of social justice and equality. Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to remain on bail, where the evidence indicates they actively inflicted physical, as well as mental, torment, could undermine not only the fairness of the trial but also public confidence in the criminal justice system," the bench said.

Case Title: Shabeen Ahmad Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr