Here’s the head note: *Supreme Court of India* *Case:* [Appellant’s name not mentioned in the text, likely to be the father of the deceased] vs. [Respondent’s name not mentioned in the text, likely to be the husband/accused] *Judges:* Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan *Date of Order:* Not mentioned in the text (likely to be recent) *Counsel:* – For Appellant: Senior Advocate Ruchi Kohli – For Respondent: Advocate Gaurav AOR *Court Observation:* The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused husband, observing that judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of dowry-related atrocities would embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The Court held that the dying declarations, relatives’ testimonies, and medical evidence satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC, triggering the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

by Sekar Reporter · December 2, 2025