Back
Cancels Bail in Case, Recommends Inquiry Against Judge
In a strong rebuke of judicial overreach, the on Tuesday cancelled the bail granted to a husband in a case and recommended an administrative inquiry against the trial judge who passed the “” order. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal found that the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, had arbitrarily exercised his discretion by ignoring the under and granting .
A Bail Order That Raised Eyebrows
The case originated from Crime No.91 of 2025 registered at , District Jalaun, under and . The applicant, Seema Devi, mother of the deceased, alleged that her daughter died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances—ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia—and that she had been subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry demands shortly before her death.
Despite this evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Satish Chandra Dwivedi, granted bail to the husband, Satendra alias Sonu, on . The order prompted the victim’s mother to file a bail cancellation application before the High Court.
The Judge’s Explanation
Taking note of the apparent irregularities, the High Court on , directed the trial judge to explain how he could grant bail “without assigning any reason and contrary to the presumption of Section 118 of BSA.” In his response, Sri Dwivedi admitted that there was evidence of dowry-related harassment and that the deceased died within seven years of marriage, which attracted the presumption under Section 118 BSA. However, he justified the bail solely on the ground of with the co-accused mother-in-law and father-in-law, who had also been granted bail.
High Court’s Verdict: Arbitrary and Erroneous
Justice Deshwal did not mince words in evaluating the trial judge’s explanation. The Court observed that the discretion to grant bail had been “arbitrarily exercised” and that the trial judge “could not justify why he granted bail to the opposite party no.2 (husband of the deceased) despite there being sufficient material against him as well as presumption u/s 118 of BSA and even without giving any reason.”
The High Court further noted that this created “suspicion while exercising this discretion,” though it clarified it was not expressing any view about the integrity of the trial judge. Nonetheless, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Administrative Committee to consider whether an inquiry is warranted for such “erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power.”
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
“It is absolutely clear that discretion of bail has been arbitrarily exercised by the concerned Judge, even he could not justify why he granted bail to the opposite party no.2…despite there being sufficient material against him as well as presumption u/s 118 of BSA and even without giving any reason.”
-
“This court is not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge, however that requires to be investigated through administrative side.”
-
“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the order dated 03.12.2025…granting bail to the opposite party no.2 is and bail of opposite party no.2 is liable to be cancelled.”
The Court’s Decision and Its Implications
The High Court cancelled the bail granted to Satendra alias Sonu and directed him to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within ten days from the date of the order. The Registrar (Compliance) has been instructed to send a copy of the order to the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai, for necessary compliance. Additionally, the Registrar General has been directed to place the matter before the Administrative Committee to consider an inquiry against Sri Satish Chandra Dwivedi.
The judgment sends a clear message that trial courts cannot ignore statutory presumptions designed to protect victims of . By ordering an administrative inquiry, the High Court has also underscored the importance of , ensuring that arbitrary bail orders do not undermine the purpose of laws meant to curb dowry-related violence.
