The Allahabad High Court judge who requested the Chief Justice not to assign him the bail roster recently — after one of his bail orders was described as “most shocking and disappointing” by the Supreme Court — has overwhelmingly ordered bail in the dowry death cases heard by his Bench.An analysis by The Indian Express of the 510 publicly available regular bail orders in dowry death cases passed by the single-judge Bench headed by him between October and December 2025 shows that Justice Pankaj Bhatia gave bail in 508 — or 99.61% of the total cases.Moreover, the structure and language of the bail orders, as well as the bond amount ordered by Justice Bhatia, were similar across cases, though the circumstances of death differed.While setting aside a bail order by Justice Bhatia on February 9, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan observed: “We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey… what weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death.”Read | ‘Supreme Court remarks had chilling effect on me’: Why an Allahabad HC judge sought a permanent break from hearing bail pleasOrdering the bail to be cancelled and the accused to surrender, the Court noted that the postmortem attributed the death to strangulation, and that the incident had happened just three months after the victim’s marriage, which invites charges under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It said the High Court was expected to examine the nature of the crime, the punishment prescribed, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the place of occurrence and the medical evidence on record.Days later, requesting the Chief Justice not to assign him the bail roster, Justice Bhatia said that the Supreme Court remarks had “a huge demoralising and chilling effect” on him.Justice Bhatia did not respond to repeated attempts by The Indian Express to reach out to him, including by mail. Queries sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court went unanswered.Story continues below this adThe case which drew the Supreme Court’s rap involved the death of Sushma Devi, 28, from Shrawasti district, whose body was found on the verandah of her matrimonial home less than two months after her wedding. Her father stated that he had given Rs 3.5 lakh in cash at the time of her wedding and that the groom’s side had later demanded a car.The Sessions Court had denied bail, noting the postmortem finding of “asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation” and marks on her neck.The casesIn each of the order passed by Justice Bhatia and publicly available on the court website for the three months mentioned above, charges were filed under Section 304 B of the IPC (or Section 80 of the BNS), dealing with death alleged to be linked to dowry, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The average duration of marriage before the incident in these 510 cases was between three-and-a-half and four years.Story continues below this adThe applicants in these cases included 362 husbands, 68 mothers-in-law, and 63 fathers-in-law, apart from sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law and other relatives in smaller numbers.In six cases, the deceased was recorded as pregnant at the time of death.In 340 cases, the cause of death recorded in the postmortem report, as cited in the order, was hanging. Poison consumption appeared in 27 cases, strangulation in 16, burn injuries in 11, throttling and head injuries in 7 each, and drowning in 4.Except in 10 cases, the court recorded that the applicant had “no criminal antecedents”.Story continues below this adOf the 510 accused, 356 had spent less than a year in custody, as noted in the bail orders — of the 356, five had spent less than a month behind bars, 104 had spent 1-3 months, 142 had been in custody for 3-6 months, and 105 for 6-12 months.Fifty-two bail orders noted that the accused had spent 12-24 months in custody, while around 31 had spent more than two years in custody.The longest detention period in these 510 bail orders was eight years, in a case where the woman was said to have died after falling into a well.In the case of 71 orders, the time spent in custody was not mentioned.Story continues below this adThe Section dealing with dowry death applies when a woman dies in unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and there is material to show dowry-related harassment. Under the law, once these elements appear on record, courts are required to presume that the in-laws caused the dowry death, unless rebutted during trial.Whether this presumption arises depends on a court’s finding of material showing harassment proximate to the death.In the 510 orders examined, bail was frequently granted after noting the postmortem report, the time spent in custody and the absence of criminal antecedents. In almost half the cases (that is, 253 orders), Justice Bhatia stated that there was “nothing on record” to suggest harassment “soon before death”.The ordersIn most orders, Judge Bhatia noted that “heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA (Additional Government Advocate) and perused the record”, and went on to mention the FIR number, the Sections invoked, the period of incarceration, the applicant’s criminal antecedents if any, and made a reference to the postmortem report.Story continues below this adThe reasoning for bail followed, while the concluding paragraph recorded the conditions for the bail.Apart from noting that there was “nothing on record” to suggest harassment “soon before death” in 253 orders, Justice Bhatia said “nothing specific against the applicant” and “no specific allegation against the applicant” as reasons while granting bail.One of the orders (typical of others, with details changed), reads: “Considering the postmortem report and there being nothing against the applicant to suggest that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to any physical or mental harassment in relation to any demand of dowry, and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.”The concluding directions are largely uniform across the 510 cases, with the bail order saying the accused was being released “on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned”, followed by the condition that the applicant attend hearings, not commit a similar offence, and not directly or indirectly induce or threaten witnesses.Story continues below this adThe bond amount of Rs 20,000 with two sureties appears in almost every order granting bail during the period examined.Where additional facts are discussed, such as dying declarations, viscera reports, or statements of witnesses in some cases, these are inserted into the reasoning section. The structure remains the same.Some orders stand out. For example, in the case against Virendra Rathor, the husband of a victim, the FIR noted that in a dying declaration, recorded “in front of the doctor”, the victim said that Rathor and his parents had “poured diesel and set her (on) fire”. The postmortem recorded “superficial burn injuries” on the lower part of the body.The defence cited the children’s statements which said the victim “herself poured diesel on her legs”.Story continues below this adObserving that the dying declaration was “at huge variance with the statement of the two witnesses” and that the children’s version “finds corroboration with the postmortem report”, bail was granted.The departuresIn only two of the 510 cases was bail refused.In Sarvajeet Kumar’s case, whose wife died after burn injuries covering about 90% of the body, Justice Bhatia’s order recorded that she had informed her father on the day of the incident that she was being assaulted and threatened.The postmortem noted “ante-mortem burn injuries” and the smell of kerosene. The court held: “Considering the manner in which the offence has been committed, prima-facie, no good ground for bail is made out.”In the case of Rishitosh Yadav, the husband of a victim, the FIR alleged that he “caused (a) firearm injury on her head, which resulted in her death”.The postmortem recorded a “firearm wound on the left upper ear and contusion on the head”, and that “the cause of death could not be ascertained”.The court observed that “prima-facie, allegations for the offence under Section 302 IPC have been specifically levelled” and that the “postmortem report on record corroborates the allegations”. Bail was thus rejected.