J U D G M E N T

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted.

The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and order dated 09.01.2025¹Hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order” passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad²Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court” in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7768 of 2024, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. l / accused, in connection with Case Crime No. 415 of 2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, and 328 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³For short, “IPC” read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961⁴For short, “D.P. Act”.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the father of the deceased Aastha @ Saarika, seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 1/ Accused – Husband, Raghvendra Singh @ Prince. The appellant’s daughter died on 05.06.2023, i.e., within four months of her marriage, in highly suspicious circumstances by allegedly consuming poison.

The facts, as projected by the appellant, are as follows:

4.1. The appellant's daughter Aastha @ Saarika was married to Respondent No.1 – Raghvendra Singh @ Prince, on 22.02.2023 according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the appellant spent approximately Rs. 22 lakhs in cash, gave articles worth Rs. 10 lakhs and jewellery worth Rs. 15 lakhs to the first respondent’s family.

4.2. Soon after marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by Respondent No. 1 and his family members on the pretext that the dowry given was insufficient. The accused persons persistently demanded a Fortuner car as additional dowry and subjected the deceased to mental and physical torture.

4.3. When the deceased came to her parental home during the chhathi ritual, she informed the appellant about the cruelty and demand for a Fortuner car. Ten days before her death, on 02.06.2023, she was again sent back to her matrimonial home only after assurance by Respondent No. 1 that such harassment would not be repeated.

4.4. On 04.06.2023, during a family function at Kaushambi, there was a quarrel between Respondent No. 1 and the deceased. Later that night, around 01.30 am, the deceased telephoned her elder sister Diksha in a distressed state, crying and seeking urgent help. At that time, she disclosed that Respondent No. 1 along with his relatives had forcibly administered some foul-smelling substance to her, due to which she was feeling uneasy.

4.5. The deceased was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital, Fatehpur, where she was found with froth emanating from her mouth. Despite medical intervention, her condition deteriorated and she expired while being shifted to Kanpur.

4.6. A post-mortem examination was conducted on 05.06.2023, but the cause of death was not initially ascertained. Thereafter, the viscera was sent to a forensic science laboratory for examination, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of aluminium phosphide poison.

4.7. Despite serious allegations, the police did not arrest the accused immediately. After investigation, charge sheet no.557 of 2023 dated 30.10.2023 was filed, implicating only Respondent No. 1/ husband, and excluding other named in-laws.

4.8. Respondent No. 1 approached the Sessions Court seeking bail, which was dismissed by order dated 20.10.2023. However, the High Court, by the impugned order, allowed his bail application.

4.9. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court with the present appeal.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order granting bail to Respondent No. 1 on multiple grounds. It was submitted that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence available against the accused, as well as the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which squarely applies in cases of dowry death occurring within seven years of marriage.

5.1. I