Dowry Death Case: Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to remain on bail could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, says SC

On March 03, 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a dowry death case. In the case, a woman was found dead in her matrimonial home with a dupatta tied around her neck, tied to a ceiling fan, and her knees still resting on the bed, within 2 years of her marriage. On January 23, 2024, a post mortem was conducted by a panel of doctors reporting multiple ante-mortem injuries, including traumatic contusions on the head and neck, as well as a prominent ligature mark around the neck. Therefore, a case was registered against the husband and in-laws of the deceased for the offences under Section 304B (dowry death), 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was first heard by the Allahabad High Court (HC), which granted bail to the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two sisters-in-law, citing lack of criminal antecedents, etc. The deceased’s father challenged the HC’s decision; therefore, the current matter was presented before the top court. 

The SC bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta cancelled the bail granted to father-in-law and mother-in-law after noting that there was prima facie evidence regarding dowry demand and domestic violence. It criticized the HC’s decision and said, “When a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness.” The bench observed, “Stricter judicial scrutiny is necessary in matters where a young woman loses her life in her matrimonial home so soon after marriage, particularly where the record points to persistent harassment over unmet dowry demands.” Also, the top court warned that casually granting bail in such matters hinders the public’s confidence in the judiciary, “In dowry-death cases, courts must be mindful of the broader societal impact, given that the offence strikes at the very root of social justice and equality. Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to remain on bail, where the evidence indicates they actively inflicted physical, as well as mental, torment, could undermine not only the fairness of the trial but also public confidence in the criminal justice system.” 

The bench added, “Where the facts clearly indicate direct involvement in the fatal events, courts must act with an abundance of caution. 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.” It also said, “It is unfortunate that in today's society, dowry deaths remain a grave social concern, and in our opinion, the courts are duty-bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the circumstances under which bail is granted in these cases. The social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases cannot be overstated: when a young bride dies under suspicious circumstances within barely two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness.”

Lastly, the bench directed, “The bail granted to Accused No.2 (father-in-law) and Accused No.3 (mother-in-law) is hereby cancelled. They shall surrender before the concerned trial court/authority forthwith, failing which the authorities shall take steps to take them into custody.”