The Allahabad Excessive Court docket on Tuesday beneficial an inquiry in opposition to a Judicial Officer who granted bail to a husband in a dowry demise case, ignoring ample materials in opposition to him in addition to the presumption below Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
For context, Part 118 BSA gives a statutory presumption in dowry demise instances. It says that the place a lady dies in circumstances constituting a dowry demise and it’s proven that quickly earlier than her demise she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment over Dowry, the Court docket shall presume that such individual brought about the dowry demise.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal additionally canceled the bail of the Husband of the deceased. The order was handed on a bail cancellation utility filed in opposition to the order of the Extra Periods Decide, Court docket No.1, Jalaun at Orai.
Briefly put, the case was registered in 2025 at a Police Station in District Jalaun below Sections 85 and 80(2) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband had earlier secured bail from the district courtroom
Earlier than the Excessive Court docket, in search of his bail cancellation, it was submitted that the deceased had died inside seven years of marriage below unnatural circumstances, with ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia.
It was additional submitted that there was proof that quickly earlier than her demise, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry, regardless of which the husband was granted bail.
Paying attention to these circumstances, the Excessive Court docket had earlier directed the Extra Periods Decide to clarify how he granted bail to the husband “with out assigning any purpose and opposite to the presumption of Part 118 of BSA“.
In his clarification, Extra Periods Decide Satish Chandra Dwivedi admitted that there was proof of harassment due to the demand for dowry in opposition to the accused and that the deceased died inside seven years of her marriage.
The trial decide additional admitted that the presumption was additionally attracted u/s 118 of BSA. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that bail had been granted on the bottom of parity with the mother-in-law and father-in-law.
Excessive Court docket’s observations
The Excessive Court docket discovered that the trial decide’s clarification didn’t justify the grant of bail. Justice Deshwal noticed thus:
“…it’s completely clear that discretion of bail has been arbitrarily exercised by the involved Decide”.
The Court docket famous that the decide couldn’t justify why he granted bail to the deceased’s husband regardless of “ample materials in opposition to him”, the presumption below Part 118 BSA and “even with out giving any purpose”.
The Court docket remarked that this created suspicion whereas exercising this discretion. Nonetheless, the Excessive Court docket clarified that it was not expressing any view in regards to the integrity of the involved trial decide.
“…this courtroom is just not expressing any view in regards to the integrity of the involved trial decide, nevertheless that requires to be investigated by way of administrative aspect“.
Subsequently, it directed that the matter be positioned earlier than the Administrative Committee to think about whether or not an inquiry was required in opposition to the Extra Periods Decide over such “faulty and arbitrary train of energy” whereas releasing the deceased’s husband on bail regardless of ample materials in opposition to him attracting the Part 118 BSA presumption.
Discovering the order of the trial courtroom to be “completely faulty”, the Court docket canceled the bail granted to Accused-Satendra alias Sonu and directed him to give up earlier than the involved Justice of the Peace inside 10 days.
Case title – Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. and One other 2026 LiveLaw AB) 652
Case Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 652
