Statutory presumption of dowry death and gravity of offense outweigh custody period in bail annulment.

The petitioner-informant filed an application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking the cancellation of regular bail granted to her son-in-law (Opposite Party No. 2, Ajay Yadav).

The deceased, Sandhya Devi, married Ajay Yadav in May 2022; it is alleged she was persistently tortured for dowry (a golden chain).

In December 2024, the informant alleged the accused killed her daughter and caused the body to disappear.

The Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, granted bail on May 28, 2025, primarily on the grounds that the deceased’s body was not found, the accused had spent four and a half months in custody, and a previous complaint statement by the deceased suggested she had been living at her paternal home.

The court applied Section 80 (Dowry Death) and Section 238 (Disappearance of Evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act), which mandates a legal presumption of dowry death if cruelty is shown "soon before death".

Regarding the standards for cancellation of bail, the court applied principles from Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. (2022) regarding "perverse" orders.

Lal Muni Devi v. State of Bihar (2026), which dictates that Courts must exercise heightened vigilance in cases of dowry death.

The High Court found the Sessions Court’s order "internally self-contradictory" because the lower court acknowledged that allegations of dowry harassment were "well founded" yet granted bail by claiming the defense had "strength".

The court noted that the Sessions Judge erroneously conducted a "mini-trial" by weighing the deceased's prior complaint statements against investigative notes, an exercise reserved for trial.

Crucially, the court held that the non-recovery of the dead body—which the accused is specifically alleged to have hidden—cannot be used as a circumstance to favor the accused.

The court reasoned that a mere four-and-a-half-month custody period is insufficient to overlook the gravity of a dowry death occurring within two and a half years of marriage, especially when the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam was ignored.

It held that the grant of bail was perverse and founded on untenable grounds.

The bail granted to Ajay Yadav was cancelled, his bail bonds were forfeited, and he was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks.

The Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, was directed to secure his arrest if he failed to surrender.