2025 INSC 307 Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 1 of 16

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SLP (Crl.) No.15156 OF 2024)

SHABEEN AHMAD …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

& ANR. …RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SLP (Crl.) No.15157 OF 2024)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SLP (CRL.) NO.11355 OF 2024)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SLP (Crl.) No.15158 OF 2024)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 2 of 16

2. These four criminal appeals have been preferred

by the common Appellant (original complainant)

against four separate orders of the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench),

granting bail to the respective Respondent No.2

in each of the following Special Leave Petitions:

• SLP (Crl.) No. 015156/2024 (Respondent No.2:

Original Accused No.3, Smt. Tara Bano, mother-

in-law of the deceased),

• SLP (Crl.) No. 11355/2024 (Respondent No.2:

Original Accused No.2, Mukhtar Ahmad, father-

in-law of the deceased),

• SLP (Crl.) No. 015157/2024 (Respondent No.2:

Original Accused No.5, Ayasha Khan, sister-in-

law of the deceased),

• SLP (Crl.) No. 015158/2024 (Respondent No.2:

Original Accused No.4, Saba, sister-in-law of the

deceased).

Since the factual matrix is the same for all of

these cases, these appeals are being considered

together for disposal.

3. The Appellant’s case arises from FIR

No. 0032/2024 registered at Police Station

Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, Uttar

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 3 of 16

Pradesh, for alleged offences punishable under

Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal

Code

1, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961. This FIR was lodged on

23.01.2024 by the Appellant (the brother of the

deceased, Ms. Shahida Bano). It states that

Shahida was married on 07.02.2022 to Accused

No.1, Sami Khan (husband of the deceased).

Shortly after the marriage, the family members of

her matrimonial home- namely, Accused No.2

(Mukhtar Ahmad, father-in-law), Accused No.3

(Tara Bano, mother-in-law), Accused No.4 (Saba,

sister-in-law), and Accused No.5 (Ayasha, sister-

in-law), began demanding additional dowry.

4. According to the FIR, the in-laws first demanded

a “Bullet” motorcycle, which the Appellant

ultimately provided in the name of the deceased.

Thereafter, they allegedly demanded a car, but

the Appellant, due to financial constraints,

sought additional time. It is alleged that because

these dowry demands were not completely met,

the deceased was subjected to continuous

1

In short, “IPC”

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 4 of 16

harassment and cruelty by Accused Nos.2, 3, 4,

and 5, as well as by her husband (Accused No.1),

who resided abroad at the relevant time.

5. The FIR further recounts that on 22.01.2024,

around 6:15 p.m., the father of the Appellant

received a phone call from Accused No.2

(Mukhtar Ahmad/father-in-law) asking him to

come immediately. When the Appellant, his

father, mother, and other relatives reached the

matrimonial home, they allegedly found the

deceased’s body with a dupatta around her neck,

tied to the ceiling fan, and her knees still resting

on the bed. On being informed, the local police

arrived, took photographs, and recorded the

occurrence in the General Diary.

6. A Post Mortem was conducted on 23.01.2024 by

a panel of doctors. The report documented

multiple ante-mortem injuries, including

traumatic contusions on the head and neck, as

well as a prominent ligature mark around the

neck. Crucially, the cause of death was recorded

as “Asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation,”

suggesting forced strangulation and ruling out

suicide.

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 5 of 16

7. In the course of investigation statements under

Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

were recorded, of the Appellant, the deceased’s

father, and various witnesses. They consistently

alleged that Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5, in concert

with Accused No.1, collectively harassed, beat,

and eventually killed the deceased for dowry.

Based on these statements and the medical

evidence, the learned Sessions Judge noted the

gravity of the offence, the unnatural death within

seven years of marriage, and the sp ecific

allegations of dowry-related cruelty, and

therefore rejected the bail applications filed by

the Respondent-accused.

8. Aggrieved by the Sessions Court’s denial of bail,

Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, and 5 approached the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow

Bench). By separate orders dated 07.05.2024,

21.05.2024, 19.04.2024, and 04.04.2024,

respectively, the High Court granted bail to the

aforementioned respondents, primarily citing

factors such as the accused having no prior

criminal history, some of them being women, and

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 6 of 16

the fact that certain co-accused had already been

granted bail.

9. Challenging the said bail orders, the Appellant

has approached this Court through the present

Special Leave Petitions, contending that the High

Court erred in overlooking substantial material

indicating the involvement of Accused Nos.2, 3, 4,

and 5 in the alleged offence.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant

and the Respondents at length. The issue for

consideration before us is whether the 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 the

gravity of the offence alleged and the material

available on record.

11. At the outset, it is crucial to underscore the

seriousness of an alleged dowry death under

Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC, read with

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In

the present case, the deceased had married

accused no. 1 on 07.02.2022 and had died under

highly suspicious circumstances on 22.01.2024,

well within the seven-year window that invokes

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 7 of 16

Section 304B of IPC. Her body was bearing

multiple ante-mortem injuries and a pronounced

ligature mark signifying strangulation. A closer

look at the post-mortem details reveals traumatic

contusions on the head and neck, indicating

severe physical violence prior to her demise.

When such brutality is combined with a clear

pattern of dowry demands, including a “Bullet”

motorcycle initially and later a car, the possibility

of a dowry-related killing becomes alarmingly

evident. Stricter judicial scrutiny is necessary in

matters where a young woman loses her life in

her matrimonial home so soon after marriage,

particularly where the record points to persistent

harassment over unmet dowry demands.

12. A further appraisal of the material on record

suggests that Accused No.2 (father-in-law) and

Accused No.3 (mother-in-law) had a principal

role in pressurising the deceased with repeated

demands for expensive items and subjecting her

to relentless cruelty. It emerges that the

deceased’s family did provide a motorcycle in her

name, yet the demands continued to escalate,

culminating in a demand for a car. Equall y

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 8 of 16

alarming is the fact that the 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. The father-in-law’s subsequent phone

call to the deceased’s parental home, urging

them to rush over, does not by itself exonerate

him; rather, when considered alongside the

forensic and testimonial evidence, it casts further

doubt on the entire chain of events leading to the

victim’s death. In dowry-death cases, courts

must be mindful of the broader societal impact,

given that the offence strikes at the very root of

social justice and equality. Allowing alleged

prime perpetrators of such heinous acts to

remain on bail, where the evidence indicates they

actively inflicted physical, as well as mental,

torment, could undermine not only the fairness

of the trial but also public confidence in the

criminal justice system.

13. In light of these concerns, we find that Accused

No.2 and Accused No.3 do not deserve the

continued protection of bail. The gravity of the

allegations, ranging from demands for costly gifts

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 9 of 16

to the infliction of brutal injuries, demonstrates

a strong prima facie case against them. Moreover,

Section 304B IPC (dowry death) prescribes a

stringent standard because of the grave nature of

the offence and the systemic harm it perpetuates.

Where the facts clearly indicate direct

involvement in the fatal events, courts must act

with an abundance of caution. Thus, permitting

the father-in-law and mother-in-law to remain at

large would run counter to the ends of justice,

especially when the evidence reflects a probable

nexus between their persistent dowry demands,

physical cruelty, and the deceased’s death.

Consequently, their bail warrants cancellation so

that a fair and unimpeded trial may take place,

in keeping with the legislative intent behind anti-

dowry laws.

14. As regards Accused No.4 (Saba) and Accused

No.5 (Ayasha) both sisters-in-law of the

deceased, the material on record does implicate

them, but their role appears relatively less direct.

One of them (Accused No.4) has recently got

married (in November 2024) and begun her new

life, while the other (Accused No.5) is quite

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 10 of 16

young, pursuing her education in Bachelor of

Arts degree and simultaneously employed as a

teacher in a private school. Although we do not

exonerate them from the allegations at this stage,

we find it appropriate to extend a measure of

leniency towards them by not interfering with the

bail granted. This consideration stems solely

from their personal and educational

circumstances and should not be construed as a

reflection on the merits of the allegations against

them.

15. We also find it necessary to express our concern

over the seemingly mechanical approach adopted

by the High Court in granting bail to the

Respondent accused. While the Court did note

the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to

fully consider the stark realities of the

allegations. It is unfortunate that in today’s

society, dowry deaths remain a grave social

concern, and in our opinion, the courts are duty-

bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of the

circumstances under which bail is granted in

these cases. The social message emanating from

judicial orders in such cases cannot be

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 11 of 16

overstated: when a young bride dies under

suspicious circumstances within barely two

years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect

heightened vigilance and seriousness. A

superficial application of bail parameters not

only undermines the gravity of the offence itself

but also risks weakening public faith in the

judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace of dowry

deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both

within and outside the courtroom, that courts

must safeguard, lest we risk normalizing a crime

that continues to claim numerous innocent lives.

These observations regarding grant of bail in

grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by

this Court in Ajwar v. Waseem

2

in the following

paras:

“ 26. While considering as to whether

bail ought to be granted in a matter

involving a serious criminal offence, the

Court must consider relevant factors

like the nature of the accusations made

against the accused, the manner in

which the crime is alleged to have been

committed, the gravity of the offence,

the role attributed to the accused, the

criminal antecedents of the accused,

2

(2024) 10 SCC 768

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 12 of 16

the probability of tampering of the

witnesses and repeating the offence, if

the accused are released on bail, the

likelihood of the accused being

unavailable in the event bail is granted,

the possibility of obstructing the

proceedings and evading the courts of

justice and the overall desirability of

releasing the accused on bail. [Refer :

Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman

Lal v. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 :

2004 SCC (Cri) 1974] ; Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan

Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,

(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri)

1977] ; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor

v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 :

(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta

Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee

[Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis

Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011)

3 SCC (Cri) 765] ; Neeru Yadav v. State

of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.,

(2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)

527] ; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT

of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State

(NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 :

(2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425] ; Mahipal v.

Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh

Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1

SCC (Cri) 558] .]

27. It is equally well settled that bail

once granted, ought not to be cancelled

in a mechanical manner. However, an

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 13 of 16

unreasoned or perverse order of bail is

always open to interference by the

superior court. If there are serious

allegations against the accused, even if

he has not misused the bail granted to

him, such an order can be cancelled by

the same Court that has granted the

bail. Bail can also be revoked by a

superior court if it transpires that the

courts below have ignored the relevant

material available on record or not

looked into the gravity of the offence or

the impact on the society resulting in

such an order. In P v. State of M.P. [P v.

State of M.P., (2022) 15 SCC 211]

decided by a three-Judge Bench of this

Court [authored by one of us (Hima

Kohli, J.)] has spelt out the

considerations that must weigh with

the Court for interfering in an order

granting bail to an accused under

Section 439(1)CrPC in the following

words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)

“24. As can be discerned from the

above decisions, for cancelling bail

once granted, the court must

consider whether any

supervening circumstances have

arisen or the conduct of the

accused post grant of bail

demonstrates that it is no longer

conducive to a fair trial to permit

him to retain his freedom by

enjoying the concession of bail

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 14 of 16

during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of

Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995

SCC (Cri) 237] . To put it

differently, in ordinary

circumstances, this Court would

be loathe to interfere with an order

passed by the court below

granting bail but if such an order

is found to be illegal or perverse or

premised on material that is

irrelevant, then such an order is

susceptible to scrutiny and

interference by the appellate

court.”

Considerations for setting aside bail

orders

28. The considerations that weigh with

the appellate court for setting aside the

bail order on an application being

moved by the aggrieved party include

any supervening circumstances that

may have occurred after granting relief

to the accused, the conduct of the

accused while on bail, any attempt on

the part of the accused to procrastinate,

resulting in delaying the trial, any

instance of threats being extended to

the witnesses while on bail, any

attempt on the part of the accused to

tamper with the evidenc e in any

manner. We may add that this list is

only illustrative and not exhaustive.

However, the court must be cautious

that at the stage of granting bail, only a

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 15 of 16

prima facie case needs to be examined

and detailed reasons relating to the

merits of the case that may cause

prejudice to the accused, ought to be

avoided. Suffice it is to state that the

bail order should reveal the factors that

have been considered by the Court for

granting relief to the accused.”

16. We clarify that our present observations are

limited to deciding whether the bail of each

Accused is liable to be cancelled. The trial court

shall proceed on its own assessment of evidence,

uninfluenced by any of the remarks made herein.

17. In view of the discussion above, we direct that the

bail granted to Accused No.2 (father-in-law) and

Accused No.3 (mother -in-law) is hereby

cancelled. They shall surrender before the

concerned trial court/authority forthwith, failing

which the authorities shall take steps to take

them into custody.

18. The bail granted to Accused No.4 (Saba) and

Accused No.5 (Ayasha) is upheld. All conditions

imposed upon them by the High Court shall

continue to operate, and they shall strictly abide

by any further directions that the trial court may

impose to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)No.15156 of 2024 etc. Page 16 of 16

19. The appeals against the bail granted to Accused

No.2 (father-in-law) and Accused No.3 (mother-

in-law) are allowed, and the appeals against the

bail granted to Accused No.4 (Saba) and Accused

No.5 (Ayasha) are dismissed.

20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

21. We direct the Trial Court to make endeavours to

conclude the trial expeditiously, without being

influenced by any of the observations contained

in this judgment.

…………………..……J

(VIKRAM NATH)

………………….. ……J

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

NEW DELHI

MARCH 03, 2025