2025 Supreme(SC) 438

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Shabeen Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2025 [SLP (Crl.) No. 15156 of 2024], Criminal Appeal No 1054 of 2025 [SLP (Crl.) No. 15157 of 2024], Criminal Appeal No 1052 of 2025 [SLP (Crl.) No. 11355 of 2024], Criminal Appeal No 1053 of 2025 [SLP (Crl.) No. 15158 of 2024]
Decided On : 03-03-2025

IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail – Dowry death – Courts are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of circumstances under which bail is granted in these case – Superficial application of bail parameters not only undermine gravity of offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in judiciary’s resolve to combat menace of dowry deaths.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 304B [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85 and 80] – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 (2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3)] – Grant of bail – Dowry death – Stricter judicial scrutiny is necessary in matters where a young woman loses her life in her matrimonial home so soon after marriage, particularly where record points to persistent harassment over unmet dowry demands – In dowry-death cases, courts must be mindful of broader societal impact, given that offence strikes at the very root of social justice and equality – Allowing alleged prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to remain on bail, where evidence indicates they actively inflicted physical, as well as mental, torment, could undermine not only fairness of trial but also public confidence in criminal justice system – Courts are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of circumstances under which bail is granted in these case – Superficial application of bail parameters not only undermine gravity of offence itself but also risks weakening public faith in judiciary’s resolve to combat menace of dowry deaths – It is this very perception of justice, both within and outside courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent lives. (Paras 12 and 15)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 (2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483(3)] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A and 304B [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85 and 80] – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Dowry death – Accused No.2 (father-in-law) and Accused No.3 (mother-in-law) had a principal role in pressurising deceased with repeated demands for expensive items and subjecting her to relentless cruelty – Deceased’s final moments appear to have involved intense violence, evidenced by multiple contusions and injuries that are inconsistent with a mere case of suicide – Father-in-law’s subsequent phone call to deceased’s parental home, urging them to rush over, does not by itself exonerate him; rather, when considered alongside forensic and testimonial evidence, it casts further doubt on entire chain of events leading to victim’s death – Permitting father-in-law and mother-in-law to remain at large would run counter to ends of justice, especially when evidence reflects a probable nexus between their persistent dowry demands, physical cruelty and deceased’s death – As regards both sisters-in-law of deceased, material on record does implicate them, but their role appears relatively less direct – It is appropriate to extend a measure of leniency towards them by not interfering with bail granted – This consideration stems solely from their personal and educational circumstances and should not be construed as a reflection on merits of allegations against them – Bail granted to Accused No.2 (father-in-law) and Accused No.3 (mother-in-law) is hereby cancelled – Bail granted to both sisters-in-law of deceased upheld – All conditions imposed upon them by High Court shall continue to operate. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18)

Facts of the case:

Issue for consideration is whether impugned orders granting bail to the Respondent Nos.2 (Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5) in these matters deserve to be sustained or set aside in light of gravity of the offence alleged and the material available on record.

Findings of Court:

Present observations are limited to deciding whether bail of each accused is liable to be cancelled. Trial court shall proceed on its own assessment of evidence, uninfluenced by any of remarks made herein.

Result : Appeals allowed in part.