In a sharply worded judgment delivered on 28 November 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision that granted bail to Raghvendra Singh - the husband accused in the alleged dowry death of his wife, Aastha @ Saarika. The bench, led by Justice R. Mahadevan, heard the matter with visible concern, especially after learning the marriage had lasted only four months before the young woman died under suspicious circumstances.
Background
Inside Courtroom No. ..., the atmosphere was tense as the appellant-Aastha’s father-narrated the sequence of events: the marriage on 22 February 2023, repeated dowry demands including a Fortuner car, the midnight distress call, and finally, Aastha’s collapse after allegedly being forced to consume a “foul-smelling substance.”
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
The judges listened with attention when counsel pointed out that the post-mortem recorded an abrasion on her forearm and the FSL report confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning - a chemical often associated with unnatural deaths in rural India.
The Court noted that the FIR named the husband and several in-laws, but only the husband was ultimately chargesheeted, raising eyebrows about the fairness of the initial investigation.
Court’s Observations
As the hearing progressed, the bench showed discomfort with the High Court’s approach. “The High Court seems to have overlooked material facts,” the judges remarked at one point, hinting that such omissions cannot be taken lightly in cases involving young brides dying within months of marriage.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The Supreme Court highlighted multiple alarming aspects:
- The dying declarations made to the father and elder sister were consistent and detailed.
- Aastha died within four months of marriage - well inside the seven-year window required for the statutory presumption of dowry death.
- Witness statements under Section 161 CrPC clearly reflected persistent harassment and fresh dowry demands.
- The High Court had completely skipped consideration of Section 113B of the Evidence Act, which mandates a presumption of guilt once dowry-related cruelty “soon before death” is shown.
- Investigation delays - including the husband’s late arrest and later transfer to CB-CID - indicated possible lapses and undue benefit to the accused.
The bench did not mince words: “The bail was granted without proper evaluation. This cannot stand,” the Court observed, signalling that courts must be extra cautious in dowry-death matters.
In another pointed comment, the Court said:
“Judicial leniency in such cases would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence.”
The judges further lamented the growing commercialization of marriage, calling dowry a “social evil camouflaged as gifts,” and stressed that such deaths are not private family tragedies but crimes that “shock the collective conscience.”
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Key Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction After 2015 NI Act
Decision
Concluding that the High Court had ignored essential legal principles and crucial evidence, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused husband to surrender immediately, failing which authorities must take him into custody. The bench clarified that its decision was only on the bail issue, and the trial must proceed independently and strictly according to law.
Case Title: Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh @ Prince & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8075 of 2025)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal – Cancellation of Bail in Dowry Death Case
Decision Date: 28 November 2025
