‘What’s Wrong With Allahabad High Court?’: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted In Dowry Death Case
In a recent dowry‑death case, the Supreme Court has cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad High Court and strongly criticised that High Court’s approach, asking, “What’s wrong with this High Court?” while remarking that in cases where bail “should not be granted, bail is granted.”
What the Supreme Court did
-
The bench (Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Vijay Bishnoi) heard a Special Leave Petition filed by the deceased woman’s father challenging the Allahabad High Court’s bail order to the husband accused under Section 304‑B IPC (dowry death).
-
After reviewing the post‑mortem report (which recorded ante‑mortem neck injuries suggestive of strangulation), the Court set aside the High Court’s bail and directed the accused to surrender within one week.
Grounds for criticism of Allahabad HC
-
The Supreme Court emphasised that the death occurred within seven years of marriage—invoking the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act—and that the High Court had not properly weighed the prima facie case of dowry death before exercising discretion to grant bail.
-
The bench observed that the High Court appeared to treat the case like an “ordinary bail plea,” whereas dowry‑death matters require “strict judicial scrutiny” given their nature as a social crime.
Broader context: recurring pattern
-
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has taken exception to bail‑related orders of the Allahabad High Court in dowry‑death or long‑term undertrial situations.
-
In at least one earlier 2025 dowry‑death matter, the Court similarly set aside bail granted by the Allahabad High Court, faulting it for overlooking dying declarations, forensic material, and the statutory presumption, and stressing that such offences cannot be diluted at the bail stage.
