Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court heard 510 dowry death bail cases from October to December last year. He reportedly granted bail in 508 of them.
That’s 99.61%. Two women’s families got a different answer.
The judge is now at the centre of a storm. In February, the Supreme Court set aside one of his bail orders, calling it “most shocking and disappointing.” Days later, Justice Bhatia wrote to the Chief Justice asking not to be assigned the bail roster. The Supreme Court’s remarks, he said, had a “huge demoralising and chilling effect” on him.
An analysis by a media outlet of the 510 publicly available orders tells the fuller story.
The cases all carried the same charges: Section 304B of the IPC, or its equivalent Section 80 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, dealing with dowry death, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The average duration of marriage before the woman’s death was between three-and-a-half and four years.
No criminal antecedents
The 510 applicants reportedly included 362 husbands, 68 mothers-in-law, and 63 fathers-in-law, with sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law and other relatives making up the rest. In six cases, the deceased was recorded as pregnant at the time of death.
The causes of death, as cited from postmortem reports, were: hanging in 340 cases, poison in 27, strangulation in 16, burn injuries in 11, throttling and head injuries in seven each, and drowning in four.
Of the 510 accused, 356 had spent less than a year in custody. Of these, five had been behind bars for less than a month, 104 for one to three months, 142 for three to six months, and 105 for six to twelve months.
Fifty-two had spent between one and two years in jail. Around 31 had spent more than two years. The longest detention in the lot was eight years — a case where the woman died after falling into a well. In 71 orders, the time spent in custody was not mentioned at all.
In all but 10 cases, the orders recorded that the applicant had no criminal antecedents.
The orders read alike. In most, Justice Bhatia noted that he had heard counsel for the applicant and the Additional Government Advocate and had perused the record. He then referenced the FIR, the sections invoked, the custody period, criminal antecedents if any, and the postmortem report.
In almost half the cases (253 of the 510) he reportedly found that there was “nothing on record” to suggest harassment “soon before death.” In others, the reasons were “nothing specific against the applicant” or “no specific allegation against the applicant.”
A typical order read: “Considering the postmortem report and there being nothing against the applicant to suggest that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to any physical or mental harassment in relation to any demand of dowry, and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.”
The bail conditions were also nearly identical across all 510 cases. Each accused was, according to the report, released “on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned,” with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not threaten or induce witnesses.
The question of material
The law on dowry death is specific. It applies when a woman dies in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, and there is material to show dowry-related harassment. Once these elements appear on record, courts are required to presume the in-laws caused the death, unless rebutted at trial. Whether this presumption arises depends on a finding of material showing harassment proximate to the death.
In 253 of the 510 cases, Justice Bhatia found no such material.
Some cases stood out even within this pattern.
In the case against Virendra Rathor, the FIR recorded a dying declaration (made in front of a doctor) in which the victim said Rathor and his parents had poured diesel and set her on fire. The postmortem recorded superficial burn injuries on the lower part of the body.
The defence cited the couple’s children, who said the victim had herself poured diesel on her legs. Justice Bhatia found the dying declaration “at huge variance” with the children’s statements, and that their version found corroboration in the postmortem. Bail was granted.
Bail was refused in only two of the 510 cases.
In Sarvajeet Kumar’s case, his wife had died of burn injuries covering about 90% of her body. The order recorded that she had told her father on the day of the incident that she was being assaulted and threatened. The postmortem noted ante-mortem burn injuries and the smell of kerosene. The court held: “Considering the manner in which the offence has been committed, prima-facie, no good ground for bail is made out.”
In the case of Rishitosh Yadav, the FIR alleged that he had caused a firearm injury to his wife’s head, resulting in her death. The postmortem recorded a firearm wound on the left upper ear and contusions on the head, though the cause of death could not be ascertained. The court observed that “prima-facie, allegations for the offence under Section 302 IPC have been specifically levelled” and that the postmortem corroborated them. Bail was rejected.
The case that drew the Supreme Court’s intervention involved Sushma Devi, 28, from Shrawasti district. Her body was found on the verandah of her matrimonial home less than two months after her wedding.
Her father said he had paid Rs 3.5 lakh in cash at the time of the wedding and that the groom’s family had subsequently demanded a car. The Sessions Court had denied bail, citing asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation and marks on her neck.
The Supreme Court, while setting aside Justice Bhatia’s order, said it failed to understand what the High Court was trying to convey, or what had weighed with it in granting bail in a serious crime like dowry death.
It noted the incident had occurred just three months after the wedding which invites charges under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
It said the High Court was expected to examine the nature of the crime, the prescribed punishment, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the place of occurrence, and the medical evidence on record. It ordered the accused to surrender.
Also Read: Muzaffarnagar Groom Wins Hearts By Returning Rs. 31 Lakh Dowry, Accepts Only Rs. 1 Blessing https://www.vibesofindia.com/muzaffarnagar-groom-wins-hearts-by-returning-rs-31-lakh-dowry-accepts-only-rs-1-blessing/
–
