SHABEEN AHMADversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

                  [2025] 3 S.C.R. 367 : 2025 INSC 307

                           Shabeen Ahmad
                                   v.
                   The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1051 of 2025)
                                 03 March 2025
               [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court granting bail to in-laws of the deceased wife, charged for
       causing dowry death of the deceased.

                                   Headnotes†
       Bail – Grant/cancellation of – In matters pertaining to dowry
       death – Death of the wife within two years of marriage
       in highly suspicious circumstances – Parents-in-law and
       sisters-in-law of the deceased wife charged for dowry death
       of the deceased – Trial court rejected the bail applications
       filed by the in-laws, however, the High Court granted bail –
       Sustainability:
       Held: Stricter judicial scrutiny necessary in matters where a
       young woman loses her life in her matrimonial home under highly
       suspicious circumstances so soon after marriage, particularly where
       the record points to persistent harassment over unmet dowry
       demands – Courts are duty-bound to undertake deeper scrutiny
       of the circumstances under which bail is granted in dowry death
       cases – Social message emanating from judicial orders in such cases
       cannot be overstated – Superficial application of bail parameters
       undermines the gravity of the offence and 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 there is a risk of
       normalizing a crime that continues to claim numerous innocent
       lives – On facts, seemingly mechanical approach adopted by the
       High Court in granting bail to the in-laws – While the court did note
       the absence of prior criminal records, it failed to fully consider the


* Author
368                                                              [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       stark realities of the allegations – Material on record suggests that
       parents-in-law had a principal role in pressurising the deceased
       with repeated demands for expensive items, subjected her to
       relentless cruelty, and infliction of brutal injuries – Gravity of the
       allegations demonstrates a strong prima facie case against them,
       thus, do not deserve continued protection of bail – As regards the
       sister-in-laws, material on record does implicate them but their role
       appears relatively less direct – Leniency shown towards them by
       not interfering with the bail granted – Thus, the bail granted to
       the parents-in-law cancelled and the bail granted to sister-in-laws
       upheld – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304B, 498A – Dowry Prohibition
       Act, 1961 – ss.3, 4. [Paras 11-18]

                                Case Law Cited
       Ajwar v. Waseem [2024] 5 SCR 575 : (2024) 10 SCC 768 –
       referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

                                List of Keywords
       Bail; Dowry death; Asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation;
       Dowry demands; Dowry-related cruelty; Unnatural death within
       seven years of marriage; Stricter judicial scrutiny of dowry deaths;
       Chain of events; Societal impact of dowry; Social justice and
       equality; Public confidence in criminal justice system; Mechanical
       approach in granting bail; Superficial application of bail parameters;
       Perception of justice; Judiciary’s resolve to combat the menace
       of dowry deaths.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1051 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2024 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRMBA No. 4876
       of 2024
       With
       Criminal Appeal Nos. 1054, 1052 and 1053 of 2025
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        369

              Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                              Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Paritosh Pandey, Ms. Rusheet Saluja.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Rohit K. Singh, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma,
       Ms. Shalini Sharma, Yash Singhania.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
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 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



1    In short, “IPC”
370                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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.
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 specific allegations
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          371

          Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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 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 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
372                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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. Equally 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 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 young,
    pursuing her education in Bachelor of Arts degree and simultaneously
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          373

           Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     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 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. Waseem2 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, 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


2   (2024) 10 SCC 768
374                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          375

          Shabeen Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of
                bail 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 evidence 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 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.
376                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


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.
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.

       Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain