‘Dry drowning’ can occur without water in lungs, Allahabad High Court holds while granting bail to in-laws

The applicants, Lalji Maurya and Jadvati Devi, respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, sought bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2026, registered at Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur, under Sections 85, 80(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The deceased had died after jumping into a river.

The applicants contended that CCTV footage showed the deceased proceeding towards the river bridge and jumping into the river, and that allegations against them were general and vague.

The post-mortem doctors opined that the cause of death was smothering because no water was found in the lungs.

The applicants argued that the death could nevertheless have resulted from “dry drowning,” in which laryngeal spasm may cause death without water entering the lungs.

On the Court’s request, a forensic medicine expert appeared and stated that the absence of water in the lungs did not, by itself, establish drowning or exclude dry drowning.

The Investigating Officer produced the CCTV footage, which the Court viewed, showing the deceased jumping into the river and her husband reaching the spot shortly thereafter.

The investigation also revealed mobile messages indicating that the deceased had told her husband that she intended to commit suicide, although no reason was stated.

The police had filed the charge-sheet, and the applicants had no criminal history and had remained in custody since 28 May 2026.

1. Whether a person can die from asphyxia caused by dry drowning even when no water is found in the lungs?

2. Whether, considering the CCTV footage, the deceased’s apparent suicide, the general allegations against the applicants, the medical evidence and the stage of the proceedings, the applicants were entitled to bail?

3. Whether the failure of the two police personnel who witnessed the incident to provide statements warranted departmental action?

The Court applied Sections 85, 80(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which constituted the offences alleged against the applicants.

On the medical issue, relying on Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Parikh’s Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, and K.S. Narayan Reddy’s Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, the Court held that dry drowning is a recognised form of drowning in which laryngeal spasm may cause asphyxia despite little or no water entering the lungs.

For bail, the Court relied on the general principles governing liberty, custody, the nature of the evidence, the applicants’ role, the absence of criminal antecedents, jail overcrowding and trial delay, as reflected in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765.

The Court reasoned that the absence of water in the lungs did not conclusively establish smothering or exclude drowning, because dry drowning may result from sustained laryngeal spasm and asphyxia without the classical signs of drowning.

The CCTV footage and the deceased’s messages supported the applicants’ submission that she had voluntarily jumped into the river and intended to commit suicide.

The applicants were the deceased’s in-laws, the allegations against them were general and no specific role was attributed to either applicant.

Since the charge-sheet had already been filed, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, and the applicants had no criminal history, the Court found the factors favourable to bail.

The Court also criticised the investigation because two police personnel who allegedly witnessed the incident had not provided their statements despite being directed to do so.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, it allowed both bail applications and directed the release of Lalji Maurya and Jadvati Devi on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each, subject to conditions against witness intimidation, evidence tampering, criminal activity and non-cooperation with the trial.

The Court further directed verification of the applicants’ and sureties’ identity, residence, mobile numbers and Aadhaar details, and ordered early transmission of the release order through the Bail Order Management System.

It also directed the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, and the District Commandant, Home Guard, Jaunpur, to conduct departmental inquiries against Recruit Constable Shesh Nath Yadav and Home Guard Ramesh Kumar Yadav for their alleged negligence and non-cooperation in the investigation.