Anticipatory bail in dowry death cases may be quashed for ignoring material evidence and non-cooperation.

The deceased, Twisha Sharma, married Samarth Singh (son of the respondent, a retired Judicial Officer) on 09.12.2025.

On 12.05.2026, Twisha died by hanging in her matrimonial home under mysterious circumstances; a postmortem revealed six additional blunt-force injuries.

FIR No. 133/2026 was registered for offenses under Sections 80(2), 85, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On 15.05.2026, the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent (mother-in-law) on the day the FIR was lodged.

The State and the father of the deceased moved the High Court seeking quashment of said bail, alleging non-cooperation, tampering with evidence via press conferences, and the existence of incriminating WhatsApp chats regarding dowry demands and forced abortion.

1. Whether the trial court exercised its discretion perversely by ignoring material evidence on record while granting anticipatory bail.

2. Whether the respondent’s conduct post-bail, including non-cooperation with the investigation and public statements, warrants the quashment of the bail order.

The court primarily applied Section 438 of the CrPC/Section 482 of BNSS regarding anticipatory bail.

The court relied on Puran v. Rambilas and Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal, establishing that bail may be cancelled if the order ignores material evidence or is perverse.

The court cited Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra for factors governing bail, including the gravity of the offense and the likelihood of tampering.

It further referenced Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which mandates extreme caution in granting anticipatory bail in dowry death cases.

It cited Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, which permits revocation if the order is legally untenable or ignores societal impact at the threshold of investigation.

The High Court found that the trial court's order suffered from patent perversity as it failed to consider the "antemortem" injuries found on the deceased's body which were unrelated to hanging.

The court noted that the trial court erroneously characterized the allegations as "formal" and prematurely relied on defense documents (e.g., medical prescriptions and bank transfers) as "gospel truth" while ignoring the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bhartiya Saksha Adhiniyam.

The analysis highlighted that the respondent, despite being a retired Judicial Officer, failed to cooperate with investigative notices and attempted to malign the deceased's character through selective media leaks of CCTV footage.

The court determined that the WhatsApp chats provided prima facie evidence of harassment and coercion regarding pregnancy termination, which the trial court overlooked.

The High Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary given the serious nature of the "dowry death" and the respondent's influential status and non-cooperation.

Consequently, the anticipatory bail order dated 15.05.2026 was quashed, and the petitions filed by the State and the father of the deceased were allowed.