The Supreme Court recently took strong exception to the Allahabad High Court granting bail to a man accused of strangling his wife to death for not meeting repeated dowry demands including a Toyota Fortuner car and cash. .A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi noted that the High Court had not even recorded facts properly and had granted bail primarily on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR without examining the surrounding circumstances or statutory presumptions applicable to dowry death cases.“We are at pains to observe that the High Court has not even recorded the facts correctly far from the erroneous line of reasonings assigned for the purpose of grant of bail to the accused in a serious crime like dowry death...We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused," the top court observed. It said the case reflected a disturbing pattern of young married women being subjected to cruelty and killed for dowry, particularly in States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Karnataka. It pointed to 2023 data showing 6,156 dowry deaths nationwide, including 2,122 in Uttar Pradesh and 1,143 in Bihar.The Court emphasised that despite legal prohibitions and increased access to education, dowry demands continue to persist, often escalating after marriage into coercion and violence.“Over a period of time, we have noticed that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, young girls just married are being killed mercilessly at their matrimonial home for want of dowry. Either they are forced to commit suicide due to incessant harassment or are murdered for want of more dowry,” the Court noted..The case arose from the death of a woman in Ghaziabad in 2024. She was married to the accused, one Prince Chaudhary, in February 2019. According to the FIR lodged by her father, the family had spent over ₹30 lakh on the marriage, including an i20 car and ₹10 lakh cash. However, when the i20 car got damaged in an accident, the husband and his family began demanding a Fortuner car and an additional ₹10 lakh.The complaint alleged that when these demands were not met, the woman was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment. She was allegedly beaten, abused, kept hungry and threatened with death.Her father stated that despite expressing inability to meet further demands, he transferred ₹4 lakh from family accounts to the husband’s relatives and paid ₹5 lakh in cash on multiple occasions. The harassment, however, allegedly continued.On July 11, 2024, at around 7:30 am, the woman spoke to her father over the phone. According to the FIR, she was crying and said she was being beaten and threatened with being strangled or hanged.A few hours later, a relative from her matrimonial home allegedly informed her family that she had been strangled and hanged.When the family reached her matrimonial home, she was not there. Neighbours told them that her body had been taken to a hospital.Her father ultimately found her dead at a hospital in Ghaziabad.An FIR was registered the very next day, naming eight members of Prince’s family. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed against Prince and his parents under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.The FIR recorded that there were visible injury marks on the victim's neck and body. The post-mortem report recorded multiple ante-mortem injuries, including contusions on the face, arms and chest and a ligature mark measuring 32 cm around the neck.Following his arrest, Prince first approached sessions court seeking bail. However, the sessions court rejected his plea. He then approached the Allahabad High Court which granted him bail, citing delay in lodging the FIR The victim’s father then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order..After examining the records, the Supreme Court found that the FIR had been lodged promptly on the very next day after the death and that the High Court had erred in treating it as delayed.The Court further noted that the High Court had failed to take into account the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, which applies in cases of dowry death where harassment is shown soon before death."The parents learnt about the death of their daughter then on the very next date, i.e., on 12.07.2024 the FIR came to be lodged at the concerned police station. Where is the delay in the registration of the FIR. Assuming for the moment that there was some delay in lodging the FIR, should that by itself in a serious crime like dowry death be a ground to release the accused on bail? It seems that the High Court remained completely oblivious of Section 118 of the BSA," the Court noted. It also referred to the post-mortem findings and observed that the nature of injuries required proper appreciation during trial and could not be brushed aside at the stage of bail..The Court then turned to the broader social context of dowry-related crimes, noting that the practice continues despite decades of legal prohibition.“In India, where a daughter is traditionally considered ‘paraya dhan’, there exists a deeply ingrained, yet often unspoken, custom of parents or guardians giving ‘gifts’ at weddings, hoping to secure their daughter’s happiness in her marital life,” it said. The Court observed that such practices often escalate after marriage.“Before the wedding, the groom’s family rarely makes exorbitant demands, but once the marriage is formalised, they begin exerting pressure, believing that the bride’s parents will have no choice but to comply in order to maintain the marriage,” it opined. It described this as an insidious cycle of coercion and blackmail where continued demands place women in vulnerable situations.The Court said that a deeper societal change is necessary to eradicate the practice, including refusal to give dowry and social stigma against those who demand it.The Court ultimately cautioned that judicial orders must not send a message that such crimes are being taken lightly..Accordingly, the Court cancelled the bail granted to Prince and directed him to surrender within one week. It also directed the trial court to complete the trial within one year.It clarified that its observations were limited to the issue of bail and would not influence the merits of the trial..[Read Order].Mahesh Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
