Dowry Demand Allegation Not Made In First Instance: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Dentist In His Wife’s Death Case
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting the appellant’s regular bail application in a case registered under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Supreme Court has set aside an order rejecting the bail application of a dentist in his wife’s murder case after noting that the FIR was registered for an offence concerning abetment to commit suicide, but she had not sustained any such injury which could be the cause of her death. The Apex Court also noted that the allegation of demand for money or dowry was not made in the first instance.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting the appellant’s regular bail application in a case registered under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria held, “Considering that the FIR was registered for an offence concerning abetment to commit suicide and the deceased had not sustained any such injury which can be said to be the cause of her death and prima facie it is found that she died of Atracurium Besylate Injection which is a medicine given as anaesthesia and the deceased herself was an anaesthetist and that the allegation of demand of money/dowry was not made in the first instance but was made in the subsequent case diary statements, as also for the reason that the appellant is not a hardened criminal, though one more case is registered against him concerning cheating and forgery in which a large number of persons are involved and there being no possibility of the appellant not being available for trial as also for the reason that he is in jail since 25.03.2025, we are inclined to allow the present Appeal and release the appellant on bail.”
Senior Advocate Vivek K Tankha represented the Appellant, while AAG Sridhar Potaraju represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, a dentist, was running a clinic in Madhya Pradesh, where he came in contact with the deceased. After one and a half years of relationship, they got married and started their matrimonial life. According to the appellant, on the morning of March 21, 2025 the deceased did not come out of her room and the appellant entered the room after the door had to be broken. The appellant found his wife lying on the bed in an unresponsive state. There were needle pricks on the left hand of the deceased. The local police and the deceased's relatives were informed.
Upon reaching the hospital, she was declared dead. An FIR was registered, and the High Court rejected the appellant's petition for regular bail after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the offence. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Police recovered a photograph of a two-page handwritten suicide note, several WhatsApp chats, screenshots and an audio recording of a quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the night in question. The contents disclosed persistent marital discord and emotional distress.
The Bench noted that in the FIR lodged by the brother of the deceased, it was prima facie suspected that the deceased committed suicide due to persistent mental harassment inflicted upon her by her husband as he was having a relationship with his nurse. It was registered for an offence relating to abetment to commit suicide. No allegation of demand of dowry was made in the FIR, the Bench noted.
The Bench further found that the FIR was registered for an offence concerning abetment to commit suicide, but the wife had not sustained any such injury which could be the cause of her death, and the allegation of demand of money or dowry was not made in the first instance.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order and directed the appellant to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. “The appellant shall cooperate with the Trial Court and shall not influence the witnesses in any manner”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Abhijit Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 83)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Vivek K Tankha, Advocates Aditya Dev Triguna, AOR Dhawesh Pahuja, Advocates Vipul Tiwari, Inder Dev, Chaitanya Sharma
Respondent: AAG Sridhar Potaraju, AAG D. S. Parmar, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Government Advocate Abhimanyu Singh, Advocates Saurabh Singh, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Aditya Chaudhary, Silpi S. Swain, AOR Praveen Chaturvedi, Advocates Shashindra Tripathi