The Supreme Court has granted regular bail to an accused dentist in a matrimonial death case, holding that allegations of dowry demand introduced only in subsequent witness statements cannot, by themselves, justify continued incarceration at the bail stage when such claims were absent in the FIR and initial case diary entries. The bail decisions must be based on prima facie material and not on later embellishments unsupported by contemporaneous evidence.
The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria bail cannot be denied solely on the gravity of allegations when prima facie evidence is weak or inconsistent. Allegations of dowry demand must be scrutinised carefully when they surface only through improved statements. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration is not justified once the charge sheet is filed, especially when the accused is not a hardened criminal and there is no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
The case arose from the death of a woman doctor on March 21, 2025, barely four months after her marriage. The death was initially treated as a suicide. An FIR was lodged three days later alleging that persistent mental harassment caused by the husband’s alleged extra-marital relationship drove the deceased to take her own life. The FIR did not contain any allegation of dowry demand.
Following investigation, the police filed a charge sheet invoking offences under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Charges were framed by the trial court, after which the High Court rejected the accused’s bail plea citing the seriousness of the offence.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the investigation material and medical evidence. The Court noted that the FIR and the first statements of the deceased’s parents and brother did not allege any demand for dowry. Allegations regarding dowry demand appeared only in later statements, amounting to material improvements. The prosecution initially treated the case as one of abetment to suicide, not dowry death.
The Court observed that such subsequent embellishments weaken the prosecution’s prima facie case at the stage of considering bail.
The post-mortem report recorded several ante-mortem injuries, including needle prick marks on the deceased’s hand. However, medical opinion suggested that most of these injuries could be self-inflicted and were consistent with the use of a syringe or injection.
Significantly, the Court noted that the deceased herself was a medical professional specialising in anaesthesia, and the cause of death was linked to Atracurium Besylate — a drug commonly used in anaesthetic procedures. There was no conclusive medical evidence at this stage to indicate homicidal administration of the drug.
The prosecution relied on digital evidence recovered from the deceased’s mobile phone, including messages, WhatsApp chats, and an audio recording of a quarrel between the couple on the night before the death. The Court acknowledged that these materials indicated marital discord and emotional distress but clarified that emotional strain alone does not automatically establish abetment or dowry death without clear acts of instigation or coercion.
The Court also took note of the fact that the accused had been in custody since March 25, 2025, and that the trial was likely to take time.
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the accused on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. It directed the accused to cooperate with the trial proceedings and restrained him from influencing witnesses.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its observations were confined strictly to the consideration of bail and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Abhijit Pandey Versus State of MP
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 446 Of 2026
Date: 23/01/2026
