It is definitely absolutely justified and stands to reason that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Mahesh Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr in Criminal Appeal of 2026 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 6716/2026) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 440 that was pronounced as recently as on 30 April 2026 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has set aside the bail order that had been granted by the Allahabad High Court to a man who was accused of killing his wife over dowry demands. It must be laid bare that a woman who was found dead under suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home in Ghaziabad on July 11, 2024 within seven years of her marriage solemnized in February 2019. An FIR that was lodged by the father of deceased alleged that despite spending over Rs 30 lakh at the time of marriage including an i20 car, cash, jewellery and household articles, the husband and his family continued demanding a Toyota Fortuner car and additional Rs 10 lakh as dowry.
While taking potshots at Allahabad High Court, the top court pointed out that the High Court failed to properly record facts and ignored crucial evidence in the case. We need to note that the Apex Court also called the earlier decision a serious error in judicial discretion. The top court was most unequivocal in holding that the Allahabad High Court had failed to properly appreciate the seriousness of the allegations, the medical evidence and the statutory presumptions applicable in offences involving dowry death.
It must be noted that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JB Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vijay Bishnoi who authored this most commendable judgment cancelled the bail that had been granted to Prince Chaudhary who is accused of strangling his wife to death for not fulfilling repeated dowry demands which included a Toyota Fortuner car and an additional cash. It definitely merits just no reiteration that there must be complete zero tolerance for dowry demands which certainly cannot be ever justified on any pretext whatsoever. The top court also pointed out that the High Court had wrongly granted bail mainly on the ground of delay in filing the FIR without examining the surrounding circumstances or the legal presumptions applicable in dowry death cases.
It is entirely in order that the top 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. The Apex Court also cautioned sternly that judicial orders must not send a message that such crimes are being taken lightly. Very rightly so! It was also made absolutely clear that its observations were limited to the issue of bail and would not influence the merits of the trial.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Mahatma Gandhiji once said, “Any young man who makes dowry a condition to marriage discredits his education and his country and dishonours womanhood.”
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 3 stating that, “This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 27.08.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14304 of 2025 by which the bail application preferred by the respondent no.2 before us (original accused) (husband of the deceased) came to be allowed.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “We take notice of the fact that the respondent no.2 was married to the deceased. The marriage was solemnized on 08.02.2019. As per the case of the prosecution soon after marriage the husband and his family members started harassing the deceased for want of dowry.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “On 11.07.2024 the deceased was found dead under suspicious circumstances at her matrimonial home.”
Briefly stated, the Bench states in para 6 that, “In such circumstances, the father of the deceased lodged a First Information Report registered as case Crime No. 667 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024 with Kavi Nagar Police Station, District Ghaziabad, State of Uttar Pradesh.
Accused Persons:
1. Prince Chaudhary (Husband)
2. Devendra Chaudhary (Father-in-law)
3. Beena Chaudhary (Mother-in-law)
4. Amar Chaudhary (Brother-in-law)
5. Vishal Chaudhary (Brother-in-law)
6. Virendra Singh (Uncle)
7. Neeta Chaudhary (Aunt)
8. Balram Chaudhary (Grandfather-in-law)
All residents of Sadarpur, Ghaziabad.
– for harassing the complainant’s daughter for dowry, assaulting her, abusing her, threatening to kill her, and murdering her by strangulation/hanging.””
Do note, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “In all eight persons have been shown as accused in the FIR.”
Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 8 that, “Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent no. 2 and his parents for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 respectively (for short, “the BNS, 2023”) and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “Act, 1961”).”
Do further note, the Bench then also notes in para 9 that, The committal of the criminal case culminated in Sessions Case No.805 of 2024 pending as on date in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Ghaziabad.”
As things stands, the Bench then discloses in para 10 laying bare that, “The respondent no.2 first prayed for bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court declined to release the respondent no.2 on bail, and accordingly rejected the bail application. The respondent no.2 thereafter went before the High Court and prayed for bail. The High Court, by way of the impugned order released the respondent no.2 on bail.”
Frankly speaking, the Bench observes in para 12 that, “Thus, it appears on plain reading of the impugned order that what weighed with the High Court in the exercise of its discretion is delay in lodging the FIR and the cause of death being asphyxia. Except the aforesaid, no other good ground has been assigned by the High Court for grant of bail to the accused in such a serious crime.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 13 that, “The appellant being the father of the deceased is here before us with present appeal seeking to get the bail cancelled.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 15 that, “We are of the view that the High Court committed an egregious error in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused more particularly having regard to the serious nature of the crime.”
While striking the right chord, the Bench puts forth in para 16 holding that, “When bail is prayed for, the High Court is expected to consider the nature of the crime and a prima facie case. The allegations levelled by the father in the FIR do disclose more than a prima facie case. It is not in dispute that the deceased died while at her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage. There being serious allegations of demand of dowry and incessant harassment caused to the deceased, the High Court should have kept in mind the provisions of Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (for short, the “BSA”)[erstwhile Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act].”
Most forthrightly, the Bench while taking potshots points out in para 19 that, “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. The High Court has talked about delay in the registration of the FIR and its effects. We fail to understand the basis for the High Court to say that there was a delay in the registration of the FIR. The deceased died on 11.07.2024 and no sooner 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 referred to above.”
Adding more to it, the Bench then also further points out in para 20 that, “The High Court should have also looked into the post mortem report. The post-mortem report indicates that there was a ligature mark of 32 X 2 cm all around the neck. What does this indicate? This prima facie indicates that the deceased was strangulated to death? The cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation. This aspect will be looked into by the trial court when the doctor enters the witness box and gives his expert opinion as regards the exact cause of death.”
Lamentably, the Bench laments in para 21 observing that, “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. A young girl gets married with many dreams, she would like to make them true. A newly married girl would always yearn to live a happy marital life. She would also yearn for love and affection from her husband and the family members of her husband. She would long to raise a family. A young girl does not get married to be killed mercilessly at her matrimonial home for want of dowry. This is a serious problem in some sections of the society in this country, more particularly in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Karnataka respectively.”
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench further states in para 22 that, “Despite being given better educational opportunities and encouragement to be independent, women continue to bear the brunt of dowry demands even after marriage.”
Most alarmingly, the Bench unfolds in para 27 laying bare that, “A total of 6,156 people lost their lives in dowry death cases in 2023. Uttar Pradesh again topped the chart with 2,122 deaths, followed by Bihar with 1,143. Dowry was listed as the motive in 833 murder cases across the country in 2023. Under the Act, 1961, 83,327 cases were up for trial in 2023, with 69,434 carried forward from earlier years. The year also saw 27,154 arrests under the Act, 1961 – 22,316 men and 4,838 women.”
What is most heart breaking to note is that in Uttar Pradesh where we see maximum dowry deaths and which tops the State list in having maximum number of pending cases there is only one High Court Bench at Lucknow so close to Allahabad High Court created 78 years ago on July 1, 1948 and West UP which owes for majority of pending cases of UP has not even a single High Court Bench just like Bihar even though Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself recommended permanent seat of High Court Bench in West UP about 50 years ago yet not even a Circuit Bench created till date and Maharashtra which already had four High Court Benches fifth created at Kolhapur for just 5 or 6 districts which started functioning from August 18, 2025. This merciless discrimination perpetrated in distribution of High Court Benches in different States and different regions must end forthwith!
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 28 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We do not want to observe anything further as the trial is pending. All that we want to convey is that a bail court at any level should remain very careful to ensure that its order like the one impugned before us should not be seen or read by the society at large that the courts are taking serious crimes against women very lightly. We are informed that only one witness has been examined so far. However, we are sure that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.”
As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 29 that, “In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the bail granted to the respondent no.2 accused deserves to be cancelled. It is accordingly cancelled.”
Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 30 that, “In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.”
It would be also instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 31 noting that, “We grant one week time to the respondent no.2 to surrender before the jail authorities. Let the trial proceed expeditiously. We direct the Trial Court to see that the entire trial is completed within a period of one year from today.”
For sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 32 stating that, “It is needless to clarify that the guilt or the innocence of the accused shall be determined by the trial court strictly on the basis of the evidence that may come on record. The trial court shall not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in this order and the observations made by this Court shall not be construed as final expression of the guilt of the accused. They are only meant for the purpose of bail.”
Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 34 that, “Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the Registrar-General of the Allahabad High Court who in turn shall place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court.”
To sum it up, the Apex Court has very rightly pulled up Allahabad High Court for granting bail to a man who was accused of killing his wife over dowry demands saying that the High Court failed to properly record facts and ignored crucial evidence in the case. It is definitely high time now and High Courts must be more stringent in granting bail in dowry death cases and delay of one day in lodging FIR should not be a pretext for accused being granted bail in such cases. This is exactly what the top court has held most explicitly in this leading case also and has been most forthright in observing that the High Court had wrongly granted bail mainly on the ground of delay in filing the FIR without examining the surrounding circumstances or the legal presumptions applicable in dowry death case. It cannot be overstated that such crimes must not be treated lightly as held by the Apex Court in this leading case nor should bail be granted at the drop of a hat in such cases of dowry death.
Author Bio
