Prayagraj (UP), Sep 5 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court has asked its Administrative Committee to consider an inquiry against a sessions judge of Jalaun at Orai for “erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power” while releasing a man accused of dowry death on bail despite sufficient material against him attracting the presumption under section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).
Section 118 of the BSA provides a statutory presumption in dowry-death cases. It says where a woman dies in circumstances constituting a dowry death and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment over dowry, the court shall presume that the accused caused her death.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal cancelled the bail granted to the deceased’s husband by the sessions judge. The order was passed on an application for cancellation of bail filed against the order of the additional sessions judge, Jalaun at Orai.
The high court cancelled the bail granted to accused Satendra alias Sonu and directed him to surrender before the magistrate concerned within 10 days.
According to the facts of the case, an FIR was registered in 2025 at a police station in Uttar Pradesh’s Jalaun district under sections 85 (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 80(2) (dowry death) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and sections 3 (penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Subsequently, the accused husband was granted bail by the district court.
Seeking cancellation of the bail given to the accused, it was submitted before the high court that the deceased had died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, with ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia.
It was further submitted that there was evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for the non-fulfilment of a demand for dowry and despite this, the husband was granted bail.
Taking note of these circumstances, the high court had earlier directed the additional sessions judge to explain how he granted bail to the accused, “without assigning any reason and contrary to the presumption of section 118 of the BSA”.
In his explanation, Additional Sessions Judge Satish Chandra Dwivedi admitted that there was evidence of harassment linked to the demand for dowry against the accused and that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage.
The trial judge further admitted that the presumption under section 118 of the BSA was also attracted. However, he added that bail was granted to the accused husband on the ground of parity with the deceased’s mother-in-law and father-in-law.
According to the high court, the trial judge’s explanation did not justify the grant of bail. Justice Deshwal observed that “it is absolutely clear that the discretion of bail has been arbitrarily exercised by the concerned judge”.
However, in his order dated September 1, the judge said, “This court is not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge. However, that requires to be investigated through the administrative side.” Therefore, it directed that the matter be placed before the Administrative Committee to consider whether an inquiry is required against the additional sessions judge over such “erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power” while releasing the deceased’s husband on bail, despite sufficient material against him attracting the presumption under section 118 of the BSA. PTI COR RAJ RC
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.