Honour Killing Allegations Unproven: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Father of Woman.


30 October 2025 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court has granted bail to accused Raj Bahadur in a case of alleged caste-related honour killing in Kanpur Nagar while setting aside an earlier order of the Allahabad High Court denying him regular bail. The order was passed by a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on 30 October 2025.

The appeal arises out of FIR No. 158 of 2024 registered at Police Station Sachendi, Kanpur Nagar, for the alleged death of a young man who was said to be in a relationship with the appellant's daughter, because the prosecution case is that the appellant's family, on account of the caste factor involved, was inimical to the relationship and conspired to cause the death of the young man.


 

 

During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that there was neither any direct evidence nor incriminating recovery linking Raj Bahadur to the crime. It was further submitted that the prosecution’s case rested purely on suspicion. It was pointed out that the appellant had been in custody since May 2024 and deserved bail pending trial.

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondent strongly opposed the plea but fairly conceded that no direct ocular evidence was available to implicate the appellant. Taking into consideration the submissions and the absence of direct evidence, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had established a case for bail without going into the merits of the allegations.

The bench, while setting aside the High Court's order, directed the trial court to release the appellant on bail subject to such terms and conditions as might be deemed fit in the circumstances.

The order of the Court emphasizes that suspicion alone does not suffice to deny bail and prolonged incarceration pending trial should generally be avoided in the absence of concrete evidence.

This decision reiterates the consistent emphasis of the Supreme Court that the golden thread of the presumption of innocence runs through criminal law, and in the absence of substantial material indicating the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence, liberty cannot be curtailed.