Fake Dowry Death Cases On Rise:<\/em> The Allahabad High Court<\/strong>, Lucknow Bench, has once again brought focus to the growing concern of false and exaggerated dowry-related cases<\/strong> while deciding a second bail application in a serious dowry death<\/strong> matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Granting bail to Mukhtar Ahmad, the father-in-law of the deceased, Justice Pankaj Bhatia<\/strong> observed that \u201cfake cases of demand of dowry are on the rise<\/strong>\u201d and described the conduct of the informant as reflecting the \u201cstark reality of the society<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arises out of FIR No. 0032 of 2024<\/strong> registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Sultanpur, under Sections 498-A and 304-B<\/strong> of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3\/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act<\/a><\/strong>. This was the applicant\u2019s second bail plea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n His first bail had been granted by the High Court in May 2024 but was later set aside by the Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While cancelling the earlier bail, the Supreme Court had taken a serious view of the allegations and medical evidence<\/strong>. The Apex Court had stressed that courts must be cautious in dowry death cases<\/a>, observing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen a young bride dies under the suspicious circumstances merely within two years of marriage, the judiciary must reflect heightened vigilance and seriousness\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court further underlined:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe social message from the judicial orders cannot be overstated in such cases and we had found prima facie material indicating dowry demand and domestic violence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court judgment dated 3 March 2025 relied heavily on the post-mortem report, which indicated \u201casphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation<\/em><\/strong>\u201d along with traumatic injuries. It also noted the seriousness of the allegations, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe gravity of the allegations, ranging from demands for costly gifts to the infliction of brutal injuries, demonstrates a strong prima facie case against them\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On these findings, the Apex Court cancelled the bail of the father-in-law and mother-in-law and directed them to surrender<\/strong>, warning that allowing prime accused to remain on bail could undermine public confidence in the justice system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In compliance with the Supreme Court\u2019s directions, Mukhtar Ahmad surrendered before the trial court on 17 March 2025 and the trial commenced. However, during the course of evidence, the prosecution case began to weaken significantly. The informant, who is the brother of the deceased<\/strong> and was examined as PW-1, resiled from his earlier statements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He stated before the trial court that the allegations regarding dowry demand were made \u201cat the instance of the members of the society\u201d<\/em><\/strong> and further stated that during the inquest proceedings he had mentioned that the deceased had committed suicide<\/strong>. On account of these statements, he was declared hostile<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation worsened for the prosecution when PW-2, the father of the deceased, also failed to support the case<\/strong>. He categorically stated that his daughter was \u201cneither harassed for dowry nor was killed<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d Other close relatives, including the maternal uncle and the elder sister of the deceased, also did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taking note of this complete turnaround, Justice Pankaj Bhatia<\/strong> described the matter as a \u201cvery unfortunate case<\/em><\/strong>\u201d where the informant had taken a strong stand before the Supreme Court but later completely retracted his allegations during trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cConsidering the said statements, it is essential to notice that fake cases of demand of dowry are on the rise, as is evident from the present case where the informant, challenged the order of grant of bail before the Supreme Court and thereafter has resiled from the said statements and have not supported the prosecution version, this fact cannot be ignored by this court.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further remarked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSuch conduct indicates the stark reality of the society\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Distinguishing the situation before it from the circumstances that existed when the Supreme Court cancelled the bail, the High Court held that continued incarceration of the applicant was no longer justified<\/strong>. It noted that the applicant had been in custody since 17 March 2025 and that all material prosecution witnesses had failed to support the allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the High Court allowed the second bail application and directed that Mukhtar Ahmad be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000 each, subject to standard conditions including attendance before the court, non-tampering of evidence, and non-intimidation of witnesses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case relates to the death of Ms. Shahida Bano in January 2024, within two years of her marriage. She was found dead in her matrimonial home with a dupatta tied around her neck and attached to a ceiling fan<\/strong>. Based on the post-mortem findings suggesting forced strangulation, the police had registered the dowry death case against her husband and in-laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the Supreme Court earlier emphasised the need for stricter scrutiny in such cases, the High Court\u2019s latest order highlights how hostile witnesses and retracted statements can fundamentally alter the course of a criminal trial, even in offences as grave as dowry death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This order once again brings to the forefront the complex balance courts must maintain between protecting genuine victims and preventing misuse of stringent dowry laws<\/strong>, a concern that the High Court itself acknowledged by referring to the increasing number of \u201cfake cases of demand of dowry<\/em><\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved in the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For the Applicant:<\/strong> For the State:<\/strong> G.A. (Government Advocate)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Key Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Name of Provision<\/strong><\/td> What It Means (Simple Explanation)<\/strong><\/td> How It Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 304B IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Dowry Death<\/td> Applies when a married woman dies within 7 years of marriage under unnatural circumstances and there is evidence of dowry harassment soon before death<\/td> FIR was registered alleging dowry death after the woman was found dead within two years of marriage<\/td><\/tr> Section 498-A IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Cruelty by Husband or Relatives<\/td> Criminalises cruelty, mental or physical harassment, by husband or in-laws, often linked with dowry demands<\/td> Allegations were made that the deceased was harassed for dowry<\/td><\/tr> Section 3, Dowry Prohibition Act<\/strong><\/td> Penalty for Giving or Taking Dowry<\/td> Punishes giving, taking, or demanding dowry<\/td> Invoked based on alleged dowry demands<\/td><\/tr> Section 4, Dowry Prohibition Act<\/strong><\/td> Penalty for Demanding Dowry<\/td> Specifically targets the act of demanding dowry<\/td> Added due to claims of demand of costly gifts<\/td><\/tr> Bail Jurisdiction (CrPC)<\/strong><\/td> Power to Grant Bail<\/td> Courts assess custody, evidence, witness conduct, and likelihood of misuse<\/td> Bail granted after prosecution witnesses turned hostile<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court SLP (Crl.)<\/strong><\/td> Special Leave Petition (Criminal)<\/td> Allows the Supreme Court to intervene in criminal matters<\/td> Earlier bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court citing prima facie evidence<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
Sri R.B.S. Rathaur
Ms. Anu Kumari
Sri Anurag Singh Rathaur<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n