The Court said that by mechanically granting bail in such cases, courts risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.
On Monday, the Supreme Court emphasized that courts have a duty to conduct a thorough examination of the circumstances before granting bail in dowry death cases. [Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh]
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta stated that granting bail without adequate scrutiny diminishes the gravity of dowry deaths and undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s resolve to combat this crime.
“It is unfortunate that in today’s society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases…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 normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives,” the order stated.
The Court was hearing a plea challenging four orders of the Allahabad High Court, which granted bail to family members accused of involvement in the dowry death of a woman less than two years after her marriage.
The deceased, Shahida Bano, married Sami Khan in February 2022. Soon after the marriage, her in-laws allegedly began demanding dowry. Initially, they requested a “Bullet” motorcycle, which was provided by her family. However, they later demanded a car, which the complainant was unable to provide due to financial limitations. Consequently, she was subjected to persistent harassment and cruelty, according to the prosecution.
In January 2024, Shahida Bano’s father received a call from her father-in-law, urging him to come to the matrimonial home immediately. Upon arrival, the complainant’s family discovered her body hanging from a ceiling fan with a dupatta.
A post-mortem examination conducted in January 2024 revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries, including traumatic contusions on the head and neck. The cause of death was determined to be asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation, ruling out suicide and indicating forced strangulation.
Following the incident, the deceased’s brother filed a complaint under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Challenging the FIR, the respondents approached the District and Sessions Court, Sultanpur, seeking bail. However, the sessions judge rejected their bail applications.
However, the Allahabad High Court subsequently granted bail to the respondents through separate orders. In its decision, the High Court considered factors such as the absence of any prior criminal record, the fact that some of the accused were women, and that bail had already been granted to co-accused individuals.
Challenging these orders, the appellant moved the Supreme Court, contending that crucial evidence had been overlooked in granting bail.
The Supreme Court noted that there was a strong prima facie case against the deceased’s father-in-law and mother-in-law due to their direct involvement in harassment, dowry demands, and physical abuse.
The Supreme Court raised concerns over the High Court’s seemingly routine approach in granting bail to the accused. It noted that while the High Court considered the lack of prior criminal records, it did not sufficiently evaluate the seriousness of the allegations or the gravity of the circumstances surrounding the case.
“We find that Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 do not deserve the continued protection of bail. The gravity of the allegations, ranging from demands for costly gifts to the infliction of brutal injuries, demonstrates a strong prima facie case against them…thus, permitting the father-in-law and mother-in-law to remain at large would run counter to the ends of justice, especially when the evidence reflects a probable nexus between their persistent dowry demands, physical cruelty, and the deceased’s death.”
Consequently, the bail was revoked, and the accused were directed to surrender immediately.
However, regarding the deceased’s sisters-in-law, the Court acknowledged their less direct involvement and took into account personal factors such as their marital status, education, and employment.
As a result, their bail was upheld, with the Court clarifying that this decision should not be interpreted as a determination of the allegations’ merits against them.