The Supreme Court granted bail to a Bhopal-based dentist accused in his wife’s death, noting that allegations of dowry demand were not mentioned in the initial FIR and appeared only in subsequent statements during the investigation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has granted regular bail to a Bhopal-based dentist accused in connection with the death of his wife, observing that allegations relating to the demand of dowry were absent in the initial FIR and surfaced only in subsequent statements, raising serious concerns at the bail stage.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had earlier rejected the bail plea of the appellant, Dr. Abhijit Pandey.
The Supreme Court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) and the initial case diary statements of the deceased’s parents and brother did not contain any allegation of dowry demand. These allegations were introduced later through subsequent statements, which the Court found significant while deciding the bail application.
“Allegation concerning demand of money/dowry came in the subsequent case diary statements,”
the Bench observed.
Background of the Case
Dr. Abhijit Pandey, a dentist running a clinic in Bhopal, married Dr. Richa Pandey, an anaesthetist, on December 4, 2024, after a relationship of approximately one and a half years. The couple resided at Sky Dream Colony, Bhopal.
On March 21, 2025, Dr. Richa Pandey was found unresponsive in her room. According to the appellant, the door was locked from the inside and had to be broken open. Needle pricks were noticed on her left hand, and she was declared dead at the hospital.
An FIR was registered on March 24, 2025, initially alleging abetment to commit suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, on the ground that the appellant’s alleged extra-marital relationship with a woman named Mahi caused mental distress to the deceased.
The appellant was arrested on March 25, 2025.
Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet adding serious offences, including:
- Section 108, BNS – Abetment to suicide
- Section 80 / 80(2), BNS – Dowry death
- Sections 3 & 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Alternatively, charges under Section 103 (murder) and Section 85, BNS were also framed by the Trial Court.
Arguments Presented
The Defence
Senior Advocate Vivek K. Tankha, appearing for the appellant, argued that:
- The case was one of suicide, not murder or dowry death
- There was no material amounting to abetment
- Dowry allegations were an afterthought, absent in the FIR and initial statements
- The appellant is not a hardened criminal and has been in custody since March 25, 2025
- The deceased herself was an anaesthetist, and the substance involved was an anaesthetic drug
The State
Opposing bail, the State of Madhya Pradesh alleged that the deceased was murdered using Atracurium Besylate Injection, an anaesthetic drug. The prosecution relied on:
- Five ante-mortem injuries were noted in the post-mortem report
- Statements of family members alleging dowry demands
- Recovery of a handwritten suicide note, WhatsApp chats, and an audio recording from the deceased’s phone
In the audio recording, the deceased was allegedly heard saying:
“You only give importance to Mahi… You will see my dead face tomorrow morning.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court closely examined the post-mortem report and the medical opinion and noted that the needle-related injuries could be self-inflicted. It further noted that the contusion found on the thigh was assessed to be four to five days old and was not proximate to the time of death.
As regards the subscalp hematoma, the post-mortem report did not specify either the manner in which the injury was caused or the probable time between the injury and death. In view of this medical evidence, the Court found that no injury was conclusively linked as the cause of death.
The Court also emphasized that Atracurium Besylate is an anaesthetic drug, and the deceased herself was a trained anaesthetist.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal after taking into consideration that the FIR was initially registered only for abetment to commit suicide and not for dowry death or murder. The Court further noted that allegations relating to the demand of money or dowry were not made at the first instance and surfaced only in subsequent statements.
It was also observed that the medical evidence on record did not conclusively support the prosecution’s theory of homicidal death. Additionally, the appellant had been in judicial custody since March 25, 2025, and there was no material to suggest that he would abscond or attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released on bail.
“We are inclined to allow the present Appeal and release the appellant on bail,”
the Court held.
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated October 6, 2025. The appellant was directed to be released on regular bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court and the appellant shall not influence witnesses and must cooperate with the trial.
The Court clarified that all observations are only for the purpose of deciding bail and shall not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Title:
Abhijit Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2026
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dowry
Click Here to Read More Reports On 498A