1. Appeal against rejection of bail for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act involving unnatural death within seven years of marriage. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Fulwasua Kushwaha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 15009 of 2024)
Decided On : 03-01-2025
Important Points
Bail can be granted considering the duration of incarceration and circumstances surrounding the case, especially when the accused is a woman.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 304-B; Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3/4 - Bail application - The High Court rejected the first bail application concerning allegations of dowry demands and unnatural death within seven years of marriage - The appellant, a lady, had undergone more than three months of incarceration - The appeal was accepted based on overall facts and circumstances. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the rejection of the bail application for an offence involving dowry and unnatural death, with an F.I.R. registered following the death of the deceased due to poison consumption within seven years of marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court inclined to accept the bail application considering the appellant's prolonged incarceration and the nature of allegations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the circumstances warranted the granting of bail to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that given the appellant's lengthy incarceration and the nature of allegations, bail should be granted, allowing for conditions by the Trial Court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the rejection of the bail application for an offence involving dowry and unnatural death, with an F.I.R. registered following the death of the deceased due to poison consumption within seven years of marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court inclined to accept the bail application considering the appellant's prolonged incarceration and the nature of allegations.
Issues: The main issue was whether the circumstances warranted the granting of bail to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that given the appellant's lengthy incarceration and the nature of allegations, bail should be granted, allowing for conditions by the Trial Court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Harshit Kapoor, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Harshit Kapoor, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR
Table of Contents
2. The court noted that allegations of dowry demands were general and considered the appellant's gender and period of incarceration. (Para 5 )
3. Bail may be granted based on the general nature of allegations, the gender of the accused, and the length of incarceration. (Para 5 )
4. Appeal allowed; appellant ordered to be released on bail subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. What factors influenced the court's decision to grant bail in this matter?
The court considered that the allegations regarding dowry demands were general, the appellant is a woman, and she had already undergone more than three months of incarceration. (Para 5 )
6. Under what circumstances can the respondent seek cancellation of the granted bail?
The respondent may apply for cancellation of bail if the appellant violates or breaches any of the terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. (Para 7 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc Criminal Case No. 40358 of 2024, whereby the High Court had rejected the said first bail application filed by the present appellant in connection with Crime No. 438/2024 registered at P.S.Amiliya, District-Sidhi (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.
4. It appears that in the instant case, on the basis of the receipt of the information that the death had occurred due to consumption of poison in an unnatural and suspicious condition within seven years of the marriage of the deceased, an F.I.R. was registered by Mr. Ashutosh Dwivedi, who was posted as SDOP in Churhat Section, District Sidhi.
5. It also appears that the allegations made by the mother of the deceased in her statement on record, are general allegations of demands of dowry. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the fact that the appellant is a lady, who has undergone more than three months of incarceration as on the date (approximately), we are inclined to accept the present appeal.
6. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 438/2024 registered at P.S.-Amiliya, District-Sidhi (M.P.), subject to appropriate terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.
7. It goes without saying that the respondent(s) shall be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail in case any of the conditions, that may be imposed by the Trial Court, are violated or breached by the appellant.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
