Supreme Court Slams 'Shocking' Bail in Bride's Strangulation Death, Orders Husband Back to Custody

In a blistering rebuke, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan has set aside a High Court order granting bail to Devraj alias Golu, the husband accused in the dowry death of his 22-year-old wife Sushma. The court described the Allahabad High Court's decision as a "travesty of justice," directing the accused to surrender immediately and emphasizing the statutory presumption in dowry death cases.

From Wedding Joy to Midnight Mystery

Sushma, daughter of appellant Chetram Verma, was married to Devraj on March 1, 2025, in a ceremony where her family allegedly gave Rs 3.5 lakh in cash and other dowry items befitting their status. Just three months later, on April 25, 2025, at around 3:30 AM, Chetram received a call informing him of his daughter's death at her matrimonial home in Revalia village, under Kotwali Bhinga Police Station, Shravasti district, Uttar Pradesh.

Rushing to the scene, Chetram found injury marks on Sushma's neck. He promptly lodged FIR No. 188/2025 against Devraj, his family members—including father Rambachan, mother Ramrani, brother Majnu, and others—alleging relentless dowry demands for a four-wheeler and physical/mental torture. The postmortem confirmed the cause as asphyxia due to strangulation , leading to charges under Sections 85 (cruelty by husband/relatives) and 80(2) (dowry death) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS ), plus Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 .

Investigation culminated in a chargesheet, with Sessions Case No. 280/2025 underway; only PW-1 (Chetram) has testified so far.

High Court Grants Bail Amid Defense Claims

Devraj, in jail since April 27, 2025, sought bail via Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8097/2025. His counsel highlighted co-accused Rambachan's prior bail (July 9, 2025), an intact hyoid bone in the postmortem (citing Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence), and argued against the strangulation opinion. Noting no prior criminal history and custody duration, the High Court granted bail on October 10, 2025, with conditions like personal bonds and no tampering.

Chetram appealed, arguing the order ignored the crime's severity.

Prosecutor's Pushback and Supreme Court Intervention

Appellant Chetram's counsel urged cancellation, stressing the husband-wife relationship, midnight incident at the matrimonial home, strangulation evidence, and dowry harassment allegations triggering ** Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ( BSA )**—the presumption of dowry death if cruelty for dowry precedes death within seven years of marriage.

The State supported, while Devraj's counsel defended the High Court's discretion. The Supreme Court, hearing the SLP (Criminal Appeal No. 770/2026), refused merits discussion mid-trial but found the impugned order unsustainable.

Why the High Court Fell Short: A Legal Reckoning

The bench lambasted the High Court for mechanically noting jail time and clean record without weighing:

• Nature of crime : Dowry death with strangulation.
• Punishments : Severe under 80(2)/85.
• Relationship : Husband allegedly harassing wife.
• Scene : Isolated matrimonial home.
• Key evidence : Postmortem and ** Section 118 presumption**, which mandates courts presume dowry death causation if cruelty/dowry demands shown "soon before" death.

No precedents were cited, but the ruling reinforces bail restraint in such cases, distinguishing routine matters from those invoking statutory safeguards against marital cruelty.

Key Observations

> "The impugned order is one of the most shocking and disappointing orders that we have come across over a period of time." > (Para 4, highlighting judicial dismay)

> "The impugned order has led to travesty of justice. It was expected of the High Court to consider the bail application keeping in mind: (i) The nature of the alleged crime... (v) ...the statutory presumption of commission of offence as envisaged under Section 118 of the ." > (Para 19, listing critical factors overlooked)

> " Section 118 . Presumption as to dowry death.—When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death." > (Quoted in Para 20, core legal provision)

Justice Demands Swift Trial, No Escape for Accused

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacating bail and ordering Devraj's immediate surrender to the Trial Court for judicial custody. The trial must proceed expeditiously , with guilt/innocence reserved for evidence-led verdict.

This ruling signals stricter bail scrutiny in dowry deaths, bolstering victim families' faith and deterring hasty releases where presumptions apply. A copy goes to Allahabad High Court's Chief Justice for awareness.