Second bail is unwarranted where dowry-death allegations persist despite hostile prosecution witnesses.

The applicant sought his second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Crime No. 375/2025 registered at Police Station Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The deceased, Afroz Khan, was found hanging from a ceiling fan at the matrimonial home on 8 September 2025. Following the merg inquiry, inquest proceedings, witness statements, spot inspection, and post-mortem examination, the prosecution alleged that the applicant and his family members had harassed the deceased for dowry from 5 July 2024 until her death.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his family demanded ₹5,00,000 as dowry and that ₹1,50,000 was transferred by the deceased’s father to the account of the applicant’s father on the following day, with further demands allegedly being made thereafter.

The applicant was arrested on 24 September 2025, and the charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation.

His first bail application had been rejected on merits by the High Court on 4 February 2026.

In the present application, the applicant relied principally on his period of custody and the progress of the trial: five of nineteen prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the deceased’s father and brother had turned hostile.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS in the circumstances of the case, despite the rejection of his earlier bail application on merits?

2. Whether the applicant’s custody since 24 September 2025, the examination of only five of nineteen prosecution witnesses, and the hostile testimony of the deceased’s father and brother constituted sufficient grounds for grant of second bail?

3. Whether the seriousness of the allegations of dowry harassment, the alleged payment of ₹1,50,000, and the deceased’s suicide justified continued detention pending trial?

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS, which governs the High Court’s power to grant bail in appropriate cases.

It also considered the offences alleged under Sections 80(2) and 3(5) BNS, relating to the prosecution case concerning dowry-related death and acts done with common intention.

In considering a second bail application, the Court treated the rejection of the first application on merits as a material circumstance and examined whether subsequent developments justified a different conclusion.

The Court further applied the general bail principle that the seriousness of the accusation, the surrounding circumstances of the alleged offence, and the stage and progress of the trial are relevant considerations.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant had remained in custody since 24 September 2025 and that only five of the nineteen prosecution witnesses had been examined. It also noted that the deceased’s father and brother had turned hostile.

However, these circumstances were not considered sufficient to overcome the earlier rejection of bail on merits.

The Court gave greater weight to the prosecution allegation that the deceased had died by suicide in the matrimonial setting following continuous dowry-related harassment, including an alleged demand of ₹5,00,000 and the immediate transfer of ₹1,50,000 to the applicant’s father’s account.

Considering the overall circumstances surrounding the death and the seriousness of the allegations, the Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail at that stage.

The Court directed or expected the trial Court to make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order, subject to there being no legal impediment.

A certified copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the trial Court for information and compliance.