The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court of Madhya Pradesh's order rejecting the appellant's regular bail application in a case involving the death of his wife, Dr. Richa Pandey -- The appellant was charged under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for abetment of suicide and dowry death, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -- The Court examined the evidence, including a suicide note, WhatsApp chats, and post-mortem injuries, and found no prima facie material to support the charges -- Considering the appellant's profession as a dentist, lack of criminal history, and filing of the charge-sheet, the Court granted bail with conditions, overturning the High Court's decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and granted bail to the appellant who was charged with offences under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -- The Court held that there was no prima facie evidence to establish abetment of suicide or dowry death, and the appellant, being a dentist and not a hardened criminal, should be released on bail after the charge-sheet was filed -- The judgment emphasized bail considerations under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting the lack of material to conclusively prove the allegations -- The High Court's order rejecting bail was set aside, with the Supreme Court imposing conditions for the appellant's release
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granted bail to the appellant with conditions, and set aside the High Court's order, holding that there was no prima facie evidence to sustain the charges and the appellant should not be kept in jail after charge-sheet filing
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 72
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2026 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 16817 of 2025)
Date of Decision: 2026-01-23
Case Title: The Issue of whether the appellant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the charges under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
Before Judge: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J. , N.V. ANJARIA J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 83
Advocate(s): Shri Vivek K. Tankha, Shri Sridhar Potaraju, Shri Praveen Chaturvedi
Appellant: Abhijit Pandey
Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against the High Court's order rejecting regular bail application
Remedy Sought: The appellant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging his custody in a case involving charges of abetment of suicide and dowry death
Filing Reason: The appellant was arrested after his wife's death, initially termed as suicide, but later charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Dowry Prohibition Act, leading to the bail rejection by the High Court
Previous Decisions: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh rejected the regular bail application, noting the seriousness of the offence, and charges were framed by the Special Judge, Bhopal
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the charges under Sections 108 and 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Whether there is prima facie evidence to establish abetment of suicide or dowry death against the appellant
Submissions/Arguments: The appellant argued that there was no material to prove abetment of suicide or dowry death, and he is not a hardened criminal, thus should be released on bail after charge-sheet filing The respondents opposed bail, alleging murder by injection and physical assault, supported by witness statements and post-mortem injuries indicating dowry demands
Ratio Decidendi: Bail should be granted when there is no prima facie evidence to establish the offence, especially after charge-sheet filing, and the accused is not a hardened criminal, as per Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- The Court must evaluate the material on record to determine if it amounts to abetment of suicide or dowry death under the relevant statutes
Judgment Excerpts: Held that there is absolutely no material which would amount to abetment of committing suicide Held that the appellant, who is a dentist by profession, is not a hardened criminal; therefore, once the charge-sheet has been filed, there is no justification for keeping him inside the jail
Procedural History: FIR registered on 24.03.2025 -- Appellant arrested on 25.03.2025 -- Charge-sheet filed on 05.06.2025 -- Charges framed by Special Judge on 07.07.2025 -- High Court rejected bail on 06.10.2025 -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal, ultimately granting bail
