Controversial Bail Decisions by Justice Pankaj Bhatia Under Scrutiny
Justice Pankaj Bhatia's Bail Rulings Questioned
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, serving on the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, has come under fire for granting bail in a dowry death case. He justified his decision by stating that the accused had been incarcerated since July 27, 2025, and had no prior criminal record, making him eligible for bail. However, on February 9, 2026, the Supreme Court overturned this bail, criticizing the High Court's judgment as disappointing and questioning its reasoning. Following this, Justice Bhatia submitted a formal request to the Supreme Court to be excused from handling bail cases, citing the severe impact of the court's remarks on his morale. This incident sparked significant controversy, prompting the Awadh Bar Association to demand the removal of the Supreme Court's comments from the record.
Recent investigations by a major news outlet revealed alarming statistics regarding Justice Bhatia's bail decisions. Between October and December 2025, he presided over 510 dowry-related cases, granting bail in 508 of them, which is an astonishing 99% approval rate. Notably, despite varying circumstances surrounding each death, the structure and language of his bail orders remained remarkably consistent across all cases.
Supreme Court's Critique of Bail Orders
In its ruling to annul Justice Bhatia's bail order, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Vishwanathan, expressed their inability to comprehend the High Court's rationale for granting bail in such a serious matter as dowry death. They emphasized that the High Court should have considered the nature of the crime, the prescribed punishment, the relationship between the accused and the victim, the crime scene, and the medical evidence available. The court ordered the accused to surrender, highlighting that the post-mortem report indicated strangulation as the cause of death, occurring merely three months after the victim's marriage, which raised serious legal implications under the Indian Penal Code.
The Supreme Court's comments prompted Justice Bhatia to request that he not be assigned bail cases, following criticism of his decisions in dowry death cases. An analysis of 510 bail orders issued by him during this period revealed that he granted bail in 508 cases, with the structure and language of the orders being strikingly similar, despite the differing circumstances of each case.
Details of the Cases Reviewed
The case that drew the Supreme Court's ire involved the death of 28-year-old Sushma Devi in Shravasti district, whose body was discovered less than two months after her marriage. Her father reported that he had given 3.5 lakh rupees in cash at the time of marriage, and later, the groom's family demanded a car. The session court had previously denied bail, citing the post-mortem report that indicated death by strangulation and marks on the victim's neck. The investigation revealed that 510 cases were filed under IPC Section 304B, related to dowry death, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Among these cases, six involved deceased women who were pregnant at the time of death. The post-mortem reports indicated that in 340 cases, death was due to hanging, while others involved poisoning, strangulation, burns, and drowning. Notably, in 356 cases, the accused spent less than a year in custody before being granted bail. Justice Bhatia often cited the FIR details, post-mortem reports, and the absence of a criminal history for the accused in his bail decisions.
Understanding Dowry Death Legislation
To clarify when dowry death provisions apply, the law states that if a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of dowry harassment, the court presumes that the death was caused by dowry-related issues until proven otherwise during the trial. The analysis of Justice Bhatia's bail orders revealed a consistent pattern in the language and structure of the orders, with most bail grants based on the post-mortem report, time spent in jail, and the absence of a criminal record. In 253 orders, he noted that there was no evidence of harassment immediately before death, often stating that there were no significant allegations against the applicants.
The majority of bail orders included a requirement for the accused to provide a personal bond of 20,000 rupees and two sureties of the same amount, along with standard conditions such as appearing for hearings and not influencing witnesses.
Attempts to Reach Justice Bhatia
The news outlet also reported attempts to contact Justice Bhatia multiple times via email regarding these matters, but no response was received. Additionally, questions related to this issue were sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court, but no replies have been forthcoming.
The report indicated that among the applicants, there were 362 husbands, 68 mothers-in-law, and 63 fathers-in-law, along with other relatives involved in these cases.