PRAYAGRAJ, Sept. 6 -- The Allahabad high court has asked the high court's administrative committee to consider an inquiry against a sessions judge for "erroneous and arbitrary exercise of power" while releasing a husband accused of dowry death, on bail despite sufficient material against him attracting Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) that provides a statutory presumption in dowry death cases. In his order dated September 1, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also cancelled the bail of the accused Satendra alias Sonu, the husband of the deceased, and directed him to surrender before the magistrate concerned within 10 days. The order was passed on a bail cancellation application filed against the order of the additional sessions judge at Orai, Jalaun. Section 118 of BSA says where a woman dies in circumstances constituting a dowry death and it is shown that soon before her death, she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment over dowry, the court shall presume that such person (accused) caused the dowry death. In the present case, an FIR was registered in 2025 at a police station in Jalaun district under Sections 85 and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Later, the husband was granted bail by the district court. In the bail cancellation application submitted before the high court, it was submitted that the wife had died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances, with ante-mortem hanging and asphyxia. It was further submitted that there was evidence that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty for non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry, despite which the husband was granted bail. Taking note of these circumstances, the high court had earlier directed the additional sessions judge to explain how he granted bail to the husband "without assigning any reason and contrary to the presumption of Section 118 of BSA". In his explanation, the additional sessions judge admitted that there was evidence of harassment because of the demand for dowry against the accused and that the woman died within seven years of her marriage. The trial judge further admitted that the presumption also attracted Section 118 of BSA. However, he stated that bail had been granted on the ground of parity with the mother-in-law and father-in-law. The high court found that the trial judge's explanation did not justify the grant of bail. Justice Deshwal observed " .it is absolutely clear that discretion of bail has been arbitrarily exercised by the concerned Judge". The court noted that the judge could not justify why he granted bail to the deceased's husband despite "sufficient material against him", the presumption under Section 118 BSA and "even without giving any reason". The court said that this created suspicion while exercising this discretion. The court observed, " ...this court is not expressing any view about the integrity of the concerned trial judge, however that requires to be investigated through administrative side."...