The Supreme Court recently took a dim view of the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to a man accused of strangling his wife within three months of marriage [Chetram Verma vs. State of UP].

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan described the High Court’s order as “one of the most shocking and disappointing” it has seen in recent times

The apex court did not mince its words while setting aside the High Court order.

It took strong exception to the reasoning given by the High Court while granting bail.

"What did the High Court do? All that the High Court did, was to record the submission of the defense counsel and thereafter proceeded to observe that the accused was in jail since 27.07.2025 and there being no criminal history, he was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail came to be granted," the bench noted.

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the father of the deceased. His daughter, Sushma, aged 22, had married the accused on March 1, 2025. According to the complaint, substantial dowry was given at the time of marriage, including ₹3.5 lakh in cash. However, the accused and his family allegedly continued to demand a four-wheeler and subjected the woman to physical and mental harassment.

In the early hours of April 25, 2025, the father was informed that his daughter had died. When he reached the matrimonial home, he noticed injury marks on her neck and alleged that she had been killed for dowry.

The post-mortem report revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The case was committed to the sessions court and charges were framed. At the time of the Supreme Court hearing, the trial had commenced and the father of the deceased had already been examined as a prosecution witness.

Despite these facts, the High Court granted bail. In its order, the High Court recorded the defence argument that the hyoid bone was intact and that, according to a textbook on medical jurisprudence, strangulation was therefore not possible.

It then observed that since the accused was in jail since April 27, 2025 and had no criminal history, he was entitled to be released on bail.

The Supreme Court found this reasoning wholly inadequate.

The Bench said it was unable to understand what weighed with the High Court while exercising discretion in a serious case of alleged dowry death.

The Court criticised the High Court for merely reproducing the submissions of defence counsel and granting bail without meaningful analysis.

“We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey. What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death,” the Supreme Court said.

It held that the High Court failed to consider crucial factors that are mandatory in such cases.

“The impugned order has led to a travesty of justice. It was expected of the High Court to consider the bail application keeping in mind: (i) The nature of the alleged crime; (ii) The punishment provided by the BNS 2023 for the alleged crime; (iii) The relations between the accused and the deceased, i.e., being husband and wife; (iv) The place where the incident occurred; (v) The postmortem report indicating that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and most importantly, the statutory presumption of commission of offence as envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, erstwhile Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872,” it noted.

The bench specifically emphasised the statutory presumption applicable in dowry death cases. It reproduced Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam which provides that where a woman dies under suspicious circumstances and was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before her death, the Court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death.

By failing to consider this statutory presumption, the High Court had committed a serious error, the top court opined.

Hence, it set aside the bail order of the High Court and directed the accused to immediately surrender before the trial court.

It further asked the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Significantly, the Court also directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to be placed before the Chief Justice.

The victim's father was represented by advocates Gaurav Yadava, Chand Qureshi, Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Aisha Siddiqui, Sakeena Quidwai, Mohammad Salman Siddiqui, Tasleem Siddiqui and Rajat Baijal.

The respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Apoorva Agarwal, along with advocates Namit Saxena, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Yatharth Singh, Manindera Dubey, Shrishti Gautam, Divyansh Singh and Vikash Singh.

[Read Order]