The Allahabad High Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused in a dowry-related death case, finding that the trial court had exercised its bail discretion arbitrarily and without giving adequate reasons.
A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order on September 1, 2026, in Smt. Seema Devi v. State of U.P. and Another.
Background of the Case
The bail cancellation application challenged the December 3, 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jalaun at Orai, through which bail had been granted to Satendra alias Sonu, the husband of the deceased.
The applicant argued that the deceased had died within seven years of marriage in unnatural circumstances and that there was material indicating cruelty linked to a dowry demand shortly before her death. The High Court had earlier directed the trial judge to explain the basis for granting bail.
High Court’s Observation
In his explanation, the trial judge acknowledged that evidence of harassment over dowry demand existed and that the deceased had died within seven years of marriage. He also accepted that the legal presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was attracted, but stated that bail was granted to the husband on the ground of parity with his mother and father.
The High Court found this reasoning insufficient. It observed that the bail order did not adequately explain why the husband was released despite the material against him and the applicable presumption.
“This creates suspicion while exercising this discretion. However, this court is not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge, however that requires to be investigated through administrative side.”
Decision
The High Court held that the December 3, 2025 bail order was erroneous and cancelled the bail granted to Satendra alias Sonu. He was directed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within 10 days.
The Court also directed that the matter be placed before the Administrative Committee to consider whether an inquiry was required regarding the trial judge’s exercise of judicial power.
-300x169.webp)
