The Supreme Court on Monday said that courts are duty-bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in dowry death cases. [Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh].A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said that granting bail without proper scrutiny not only downplays the seriousness of dowry deaths, but also weakens public trust in the judiciary’s commitment to fight this crime."It is unfortunate that in today’s society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are dutybound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases...a superficial application of bail parameters not only undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in the judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives," the order stated..The Court was hearing a plea challenging four orders of the Allahabad High Court, which granted bail to family members allegedly involved in the dowry death of a woman within barely two years of her marriage.The deceased, Shahida Bano, was married to Sami Khan in February 2022. Shortly after marriage, the deceased's in-laws allegedly started demanding dowry. Initially, they insisted on a "Bullet" motorcycle, which was provided by the deceased's family. Later, they demanded a car, but due to financial constraints, the complainant could not fulfill this demand. As a result, she was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty, the prosecution stated..In January 2024, the deceased's father received a call from the deceased's father-in-law, asking him to come to the matrimonial home immediately. Upon reaching, the complainant’s family found the deceased's body hanging from a ceiling fan with a dupatta.A post-mortem conducted in January 2024, revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries, including traumatic contusions on the head and neck. The cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation, ruling out suicide and indicating forced strangulation..Following this incident, the brother of the deceased, filed a complaint under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the FIR, the respondents approached the District and Sessions Court, Sultanpur seeking bail. The sessions judge rejected the bail applications filed by the respondents.However, the Allahabad High Court later granted bail to the respondents through separate orders. The High Court took into account factors such as the absence of any prior criminal record, the fact that some of the accused were women, and that bail had already been granted to co-accused individuals.The appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the bail orders ignored crucial evidence..The Supreme Court observed that there is a strong prima facie case against the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased due to their direct involvement in harassment, dowry demands and physical abuse. It expressed concern over the High Court's seemingly mechanical approach in granting bail to the accused. It observed that while the High Court acknowledged the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to adequately consider the gravity of the allegations and the serious circumstances surrounding the case."We find that Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 do not deserve the continued protection of bail. The gravity of the allegations, ranging from demands for costly gifts to the infliction of brutal injuries, demonstrates a strong prima facie case against them...thus, permitting the father-in-law and mother-in-law to remain at large would run counter to the ends of justice, especially when the evidence reflects a probable nexus between their persistent dowry demands, physical cruelty, and the deceased’s death."Accordingly, the bail was cancelled, and they were ordered to surrender immediately..However, for the accused sisters-in-law of the deceased, the Court recognised their less direct involvement and considered their personal circumstances, such as marriage, education and employment status. Accordingly, the Court upheld their bail, but clarified that this decision should not be seen as a judgment on the merits of the allegations against them..[Read Order]
