Suicide Allegations Must Be Substantiated With Material Evidence; Dowry Claims Added Later Can't Justify Continued Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail

“No Injury Found To Be Cause Of Death; Allegations Of Dowry Demand Surfaced Only In Later Statements”, On January 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s denial of bail and ordered the release of the appellant, who was accused of abetment to suicide, dowry harassment, and murder in connection with the suspicious death of his wife, a medical professional.

The case turned on critical questions of prima facie evidence in allegations of abetment to suicide and dowry death, with the Supreme Court emphasizing that mere suspicion or subsequent improvements in witness statements cannot override the legal thresholds for continued incarceration, especially after filing of the charge-sheet.

"Injury Not Cause of Death, Suicide Note and Circumstantial Evidence Point to Marital Discord — Not Prima Facie Murder": Supreme Court

Court finds inconsistencies in the prosecution’s dowry narrative and absence of initial allegations as relevant to bail discretion

The Court noted that the first information report (FIR) filed on March 24, 2025, by the deceased's brother Himanshu Pandey initially alleged abetment to suicide, not murder or dowry death. The allegation that the deceased was emotionally distressed due to the appellant’s alleged affair with a clinic colleague named Mahi was the only ground cited for the suicide. The FIR was later supplemented by a charge-sheet under Sections 108 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the Supreme Court found significant procedural and evidentiary weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, writing for the Bench, observed:

“Considering that the FIR was registered for an offence concerning abetment to commit suicide and the deceased had not sustained any such injury which can be said to be the cause of her death… we are inclined to allow the present Appeal and release the appellant on bail.”

The Court underlined that the post-mortem report dated March 22, 2025, revealed several ante-mortem injuries, including needle pricks and a hematoma, but the report also clarified that these were not the cause of death, and several of them were self-inflicted or consistent with medical injections, especially since the deceased was herself an anaesthetist. The death was attributed to Atracurium Besylate Injection, an anaesthetic drug — a fact that the Court deemed important in assessing intent and causation.

“Allegations of Dowry Demand Were Not In FIR, Surfaced Later in Improved Statements” — Court Cautions Against Afterthought Evidence

One of the critical observations in the judgment was the timing and nature of the dowry allegations, which, the Court found, were absent in the original statements of the deceased's family members and appeared only in later case diary statements.

The bench remarked:

“The counter affidavit filed by the State contains the first case diary statement of Vinod Chandra Pandey (father of the deceased) in which there is no allegation of demand of dowry. Similar is the case with the statements of Renu Pandey (mother of the deceased) and Himanshu Pandey (brother of the deceased). Thus, allegation concerning demand of money/dowry came in the subsequent case diary statements.”

In legal terms, this called into question the credibility and spontaneity of the prosecution’s claim of dowry-related harassment, which forms the basis for graver charges under Section 80(2) of BNS (akin to Section 304B IPC – dowry death). The Court also found no suggestion of intentional homicide, despite some injuries, as the nature of death appeared to be self-inflicted poisoning.

Material Recovered From Deceased’s Phone Revealed Marital Discord, But Not Prima Facie Abetment

The police recovered significant digital evidence from the deceased’s mobile phone using a PIN shared by her brother. These included a photograph of a handwritten two-page suicide note, WhatsApp chats, and an audio recording of a quarrel between the couple. In this, the deceased is heard expressing emotional hurt:

“You only give importance to Mahi, you do everything for her, you don’t do anything for me. You will see my dead face tomorrow morning.”

While this points to emotional distress, the Court held that such material does not by itself constitute abetment to suicide under the law. The Bench thus refused to draw a conclusion of guilt solely based on the existence of marital discord, especially in the absence of any direct instigation or unlawful act that could satisfy the legal requirements of Section 108 of BNS (which replaces Section 306 IPC).

Appellant Not a Hardened Criminal, Charges Framed, and Trial to Proceed — Custodial Detention No Longer Justified

The appellant had been in custody since March 25, 2025, and the charge-sheet was filed on June 5, 2025, followed by framing of charges on July 7, 2025. The Court reasoned that since the investigation was complete, and the accused was not shown to be a flight risk or someone likely to influence witnesses, continued detention was unwarranted.

While the State pointed out another FIR involving the appellant in a cheating and forgery case, the Bench clarified that this did not indicate habitual criminality, nor did it bar consideration of bail in the present matter.

The Court concluded:

“None of the observations made herein shall have a bearing on the main trial. The Trial Court shall decide the case on its merits and in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties on merits are left open.”

Court Grants Bail; Emphasizes That Bail Orders Cannot Prejudge Final Guilt

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated October 6, 2025, and directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The appellant is to cooperate with the trial proceedings and not influence witnesses in any manner.

While affirming the limited scope of a bail consideration, the Court reminded that bail jurisprudence under Indian criminal law must strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the interest of justice, especially when incriminating material is either lacking or delayed in surfacing.

Date of Decision: January 23, 2026