Yogendra Pal Singh vs Raghvendra Singh Alias Prince

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The appellant, father of the deceased Aastha @ Saarika, challenged the order of the High Court of Allahabad granting bail to Respondent No. 1, the husband of the deceased, who was accused of her dowry death. The deceased died within four months of marriage on 05.06.2023 in suspicious circumstances, with the FSL report confirming the presence of aluminium phosphide poison. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the bail application, but the High Court allowed it by the impugned order dated 09.01.2025.

The appellant contended that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act arising in cases of dowry death within seven years of marriage, the ante-mortem injury noted in the post-mortem report, the influential background of the accused's family, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence and witnesses. It was further submitted that the investigation itself was found to be deficient, ultimately leading to its transfer to the CB-CID.

The Supreme Court, after granting leave, proceeded to examine whether the High Court had exercised its discretion judiciously in granting bail in a case involving serious charges under Sections 498A, 304B, and 328 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and whether the settled principles governing bail in dowry death cases had been properly applied.

Catchwords: bail cancellation dowry death Section 304B IPC Section 498A IPC Section 328 IPC Section 113B Indian Evidence Act statutory presumption aluminium phosphide poison post-mortem FSL report influential accused fair investigation CB-CID Dowry Prohibition Act