3 min readNew DelhiFeb 13, 2026 02:20 AM IST
First published on: Feb 12, 2026 at 04:42 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Monday set aside an Allahabad High Court order granting bail to a man in the case of the alleged dowry death of his wife last year, terming it “one of the most shocking and disappointing orders that we have come across over a period of time.”
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan said the October 10, 2025, order has “led to travesty of justice”. It asked the accused, Devraj alias Golu, to surrender immediately before the trial court and directed that, after he surrendered, he would be remanded to judicial custody.
While hearing the appeal by the woman’s father, the SC bench, in its February 9 order, expressed displeasure over the HC decision, saying all it had done in such a “very serious crime like dowry death” was record that Devraj was in jail since July 7, 2025.
As per the prosecution, Sushma, who married Devraj on March 1, 2025, was found dead under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home within three months. After she died, the police registered a First Information Report (FIR) and sent her body for a postmortem examination, which revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
“We fail to understand, on plain reading of the impugned order, as to what the High Court is trying to convey. What weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of granting bail in a very serious crime like dowry death? What did the High Court do? All that the High Court did was to record the submission of the defence counsel and thereafter proceeded to observe that the accused had been in jail since 27.07.2025, and there being no criminal history, he was entitled to bail. Accordingly, bail came to be granted,” the SC said.
“We do not propose to observe anything on merits because we are conscious of the fact that the trial is in progress. However, at the same time, we are sure that the impugned order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in law,” said the apex court.
“It was expected of the High Court to consider the bail application keeping in mind:- (i) The nature of the alleged crime; (ii) The punishment provided by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 for the alleged crime; (iii) The relations between the accused and the deceased, i.e., being husband and wife; (iv) The place where the incident occurred; (v) The postmortem report indicating that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and most importantly, the statutory presumption of commission of offence as envisaged under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, erstwhile Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872,” the bench added.
Taking up the petitions, the CJI said, “There is some sensitivity involved”, adding the question is how to balance the competing rights. (Source: Express Archives) 
Share
