The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the gravity of an offence alone cannot justify denial of bail when the evidence is equivocal, delayed allegations surface only after investigation, and the accused is not a hardened criminal. In a case involving alleged dowry death and abetment to suicide, the Court emphasized that bail must be granted where the prosecution’s case lacks immediate credibility and the accused poses no flight risk.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Dr. Abhijit Pandey, a dentist, was married to Dr. Richa Pandey, an anaesthetist. After one and a half years of marriage, she died on 21.03.2025 at their residence in Bhopal. The initial FIR, filed by her brother, alleged abetment to suicide due to emotional distress caused by the appellant’s alleged extramarital relationship with a nurse, Mahi. No dowry demand was mentioned in the original complaint.
Procedural History
- 21.03.2025: Deceased found unresponsive; local police informed; post-mortem conducted on 22.03.2025
- 24.03.2025: FIR registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for abetment to suicide
- 25.03.2025: Appellant arrested
- 05.06.2025: Charge-sheet filed adding Section 80(2) BNS (dowry death) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
- 07.07.2025: Charges framed
- 06.10.2025: High Court rejected bail application, citing seriousness of offence
- 23.01.2026: Supreme Court hears appeal and grants bail
Relief Sought
The appellant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that the evidence was inconsistent, dowry allegations were fabricated post-arrest, and he posed no risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether regular bail can be denied solely on the ground of gravity of offence when the prosecution’s case relies on delayed allegations, contradictory post-mortem findings, and lacks prima facie evidence of intentional homicide or dowry demand.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Shri Vivek K. Tankha argued that the FIR and initial case diary statements contained no allegation of dowry demand, which only emerged in later statements - indicating improvement. He highlighted that the deceased, being an anaesthetist, had access to Atracurium Besylate, and the needle pricks could be self-inflicted. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that arrest and prolonged custody cannot be automatic in non-heinous cases without strong prima facie evidence.
For the Respondent
The State and complainant contended that five ante-mortem injuries, including a subscalp hematoma and thigh contusion, indicated physical assault. They relied on WhatsApp chats and an audio recording where the deceased allegedly threatened suicide due to marital neglect. They argued that the subsequent dowry allegations were corroborated by family members and that the nature of the offence warranted continued custody.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, distinguishing between initial statements and later additions. It noted that the FIR and first case diary entries of the deceased’s parents and brother contained no mention of dowry demands, which appeared only in subsequent statements. The Court observed that such improvements in testimony, especially in sensitive cases, are often viewed with suspicion.
"The allegation concerning demand of money/dowry was not made in the first instance but was made in the subsequent case diary statements."
The post-mortem report revealed that the fatal substance - Atracurium Besylate - was an anaesthetic agent the deceased herself administered. The needle pricks on her left hand were deemed possibly self-inflicted. The Court emphasized that injury no.(iv) on the thigh was dated four to five days prior to death, and injury no.(v) on the scalp had no clear cause or timing. Crucially, the report did not establish that any injury caused death.
The Court further noted that the appellant, a professional dentist with no prior criminal record, had been in custody since 25.03.2025, and there was no indication he would abscond. The Court held that bail cannot be withheld merely because an offence is serious, particularly when the evidentiary foundation is weak and evolving.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and granted bail, holding that denial of bail cannot rest solely on the gravity of the alleged offence when the prosecution’s case is built on delayed, inconsistent, and uncorroborated allegations. The appellant was directed to be released subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court, with the Court explicitly stating that its observations had no bearing on the trial’s merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delayed Dowry Allegations Are Suspect
- Practitioners must challenge dowry death charges where allegations first appear in post-arrest statements, not in the FIR or initial witness statements
- Courts must scrutinize whether such additions are genuine or manufactured to justify prolonged custody
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why such critical allegations were omitted initially
Post-Mortem Ambiguity Favors Bail
- When post-mortem findings are inconclusive or suggest alternative causes (e.g., self-administration of drugs), bail becomes more tenable
- Injuries not directly linked to cause of death cannot justify denial of bail under Section 483 BNS
- Courts must distinguish between injuries indicating assault and those consistent with accidental or self-inflicted trauma
Non-Heinous Offences Require Proportionate Response
- Professionals with clean records and no history of violence are entitled to bail unless there is clear evidence of flight risk or witness tampering
- The Court reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration without conviction violates Article 21 unless justified by compelling, immediate evidence
- Practitioners should routinely invoke Arnesh Kumar and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand to argue against automatic denial of bail in non-violent, non-repeat offender cases
