Prayagraj: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal of the Allahabad high court has asked the administrative committee of the HC to consider an inquiry against a sessions judge for erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power in granting bail to a husband in a dowry death case despite sufficient material against him attracting the presumption under Section 118 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023, which was earlier Indian Evidence Act.Section 118 of the BSA lays down a statutory presumption in dowry death cases. It provides that when a woman dies in circumstances amounting to dowry death and there is evidence that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment over dowry demands soon before her death, the court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death.Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also cancelled the bail of the deceased’s husband. The order was passed on a bail cancellation application filed against the order of the additional sessions judge, Court No. 1, in Orai, Jalaun.The HC cancelled the bail granted to the accused, Satendra alias Sonu, and directed him to surrender before the magistrate concerned within 10 days.An FIR was registered in 2025 at a police station in Jalaun under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Later, the husband was granted bail by the district court, Jalaun.Seeking cancellation of his bail, the man submitted before the HC that the deceased had died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, with ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia.It was further submitted that there was evidence that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfilment of the demand for dowry, despite which the husband was granted bail.Taking note of these circumstances, the HC had earlier directed the additional sessions judge to explain how he granted bail to the man without assigning any reason and contrary to the presumption under Section 118 of the BSA.In his explanation, additional sessions judge Satish Chandra Dwivedi admitted that there was evidence of dowry harassment against the accused and that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. The trial judge further admitted that the presumption under Section 118 of the BSA was also attracted. However, he stated that bail had been granted on the ground of parity with the mother-in-law and father-in-law.The HC found that the trial judge’s explanation did not justify the grant of bail. Justice Deshwal observed, “It is clear that discretion of bail has been arbitrarily exercised by the judge concerned.” It noted that the judge could not justify why he granted bail to the deceased’s husband despite sufficient material against him, the presumption under Section 118 of the BSA and “even without giving any reason”.The HC, in its order dated Sept 1, said that this created suspicion while exercising this discretion. However, the court observed, “This court is not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge, however, that requires to be investigated through administrative side.”Therefore, it directed that the matter be placed before the administrative committee to consider whether an inquiry was required against the additional sessions judge over such “erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power” while releasing the deceased’s husband on bail despite sufficient material against him attracting the Section 118 BSA presumption.
