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, within five months of marriage, she died by hanging at her matrimonial home

Post-mortem reports revealed six anti-mortem injuries caused by blunt force, unrelated to the act of hanging

Allegations were raised regarding dowry harassment, doubts over the deceased’s character following her pregnancy, and forced termination of said pregnancy

The 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent on 15.05.2026, the same day the FIR was registered

The State, the CBI (following transfer of investigation), and the father of the deceased moved the High Court seeking quashment of the bail order, alleging non-cooperation and tampering with evidence through press conferences and leaked social media clips

1. Whether the trial court exercised its discretion perversely by ignoring material evidence and relying solely on defense documents while granting anticipatory bail

2. Whether the respondent's post-bail conduct and the necessity for custodial interrogation justify the quashing of the anticipatory bail order

The Court relied on the parameters for granting and cancelling bail established in Puran v. Rambilas and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, noting that bail may be set aside if the order is "unjustified, illegal, or perverse"

It applied Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal, which mandates that courts must evaluate the gravity of the offence and the exact role of the accused before granting relief

The court further cited Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, affirming that a superior court can interfere if the lower court ignored relevant material or if supervening circumstances like non-cooperation or witness interference arise

The presumption under Section 118 of the Bhartiya Saksha Adhiniyam (relating to dowry death/harassment) was also noted as a critical legal factor

The Court found that the trial court failed to consider the gravity of the accusations and the initial stage of the investigation

While the trial court concluded that WhatsApp chats only implicated the husband, the High Court observed that the statements of family members and the chats clearly alleged the respondent’s involvement in harassment and pressuring the deceased for abortion

The court noted that the trial court ignored the medical evidence—specifically the six anti-mortem injuries—which the respondent failed to explain despite residing in the same house

Furthermore, the court scrutinized the respondent's conduct post-bail, including her failure to join the investigation despite multiple notices and her actions in holding press conferences to malign the deceased, which indicated an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice

The Court determined that the trial court had treated defense documents as "gospel truth" while ignoring the prosecution's case diary

The court answered that custodial interrogation might be required given the "mystery revolving around the death" and the respondent's non-cooperation

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the anticipatory bail order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal