The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the Patna High Court for passing a mechanical order granting bail to the husband in an alleged dowry death case. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi observed that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the gravity of the offence and the materials placed on record indicating prima facie involvement of the accused-husband. The Court noted that in a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion. The impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail is wholly unsustainable. In a very serious crime like dowry death, the High Court should have been very careful in exercising its discretion.
The Court observed that the High Court’s reliance on the period of custody undergone by the accused and the delay in examining remaining witnesses was insignificant, particularly in light of the post-mortem report revealing multiple injuries on the deceased wife’s body and the fact that the trial was progressing at a satisfactory pace. The High Court in its impugned Order has not discussed anything. All that weighed with the High Court was that the accused was in judicial custody and only two witnesses had been examined till the date the High Court passed the impugned order. The High Court lost sight of many important aspects of the matter, more particularly the post-mortem report indicating number of injuries on the body of the deceased, and the presumption of commission of offence as provided under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The prosecution’s case was that after one and a half year of the marriage, the deceased-wife was found dead at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances with external and internal injuries all over her body. The appellant-deceased’s mother lodged an FIR against the Respondent No.2-husband of the deceased for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively. The cause of death assigned in the post-mortem report was hemorrhage and shock due to head injury. Further, the report endorsed the external injuries on the body. The accused-husband was granted bail by the High Court in a second attempt, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the deceased’s mother.
Calling the High Court’s approach to be erroneous, the bench observed that the High Court failed to acknowledge the gravity of the offence, and had mechanically passed the bail order, without adverting to the material evidence placed on record, which indicated the involvement of the accused in the commission of an offence. In support, the Court relied on Shabeen Ahmed v State of U.P. to reiterate that where the facts clearly indicate direct involvement of the accused in the fatal events, courts must act with an abundance of caution in granting bail in dowry death cases. In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the order granting bail to the accused, with a direction to him to surrender within one week. Further, the Registry was directed to forward one copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Patna, who shall in turn place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna.
Cause Title: Lal Munni Devi v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Click HERE for full Order
Lawcutor 