Murder| Dowry Death- Bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record| Lawmania

 

A three judge Bench of Supreme Court,  Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli, set aside the impugned order of granting anticipartory bail by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a case involving murder and dowry death of appellant’s married daughter by allegedly administering poison in her matrimonial home by respondent/accused.

 Offence  of dowry demand is heinous and is a  medieval social structure which still waits for reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary- Supreme Court

The High Court  by an impugned order, allowed the petition for anticipatory bail and also setting aside the order declaring the respondent/accused as an absconder, primarily on two grounds:

First, that the respondent/accused had joined the investigation and undertook to remain present at each date of trial proceedings;

Secondly, she was entitled to seek parity with the co-accused(her younger son, i.e brother-in-law of deceased)

Therefore, feeling aggrieved filed an appeal for setting aside the impugned order of anticipatory bail.

The appellant contended that the High Court has overlooked the well established principles to exercise the discretion in the matter of granting anticipatory bail.

The Apex Court observed after relying on the case of Daulat Ram and Others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349  and reiterating recently in the case of X vs. State of Telangana and Another (2018) 16 SCC 511,  that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail.

 In Daulat Ram’s Case, the Court had observed that :

“Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation  of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

 

In the present case, the Apex Court observed:

“Bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system”.

 

The Court also said that while granting anticipatory bail, the High Court should not overlook the factors like the possibility of the accused to influence the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation.

 

The Supreme Court said that the High Court got swayed by the fact that the respondent/accused was co-operating with investigation. But overlooked the fact that the respondent was absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as Magistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court.

The High Court has gone to the wrong way in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent/accused. The Court viewed that in the case of grave offence, the ground of procedural irregularity in declaring respondent/accused as an absconder is not a justifiable ground while granting pre-arrest bail. While granting pre-arrest bail, the  High Court must prima facie be satisfied, on the material on record that it is a case of false or over- exaggerated accusation.

According to Supreme Court, the ground of parity invoked by High Court is unwarranted, because the allegations in FIR against the respondent, mother-in-law and younger son are different and that the respondent is accused of playing a key role in the alleged offence. Moreover the conduct of respondent in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting relief.

Thus the High Court has wrongly accorded to the benefit of parity in favour of respondent, without considering the fact that the conduct of respondent is on different footing than the other co-accused.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on the basis of case laws and discussion deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and directed the respondent to surrender before the Trial Court at the same time gave partial relief that the respondent shall be free to seek regular bail.

 

The fact of the case is that the appellant’s daughter, a full time lecturer in a local government college, who was married to respondent’s son had died an unnatural death on suspicious circumstances within three months of marriage. The appellant had lodged an FIR against seven persons, 4 of whom were members of the in-laws family of his deceased daughter. The appellant had alleged that the in-laws family harassed and physically tortured on the pretext of dowry demands. He also alleged that accused/mother-in-law exploited the deceased daughter by depriving her of any chance to recuperate from the arduous chores. It was also alleged that vicious humiliation was meted out to the deceased due to non-fulfillment of the dowry demands. Before the squabble could amicably settled the accused clandestinely administered poison on the deceased for which the factum of poisoning is supported by medical evidence gathered by Investigating Agency.

The respondent was charged under Sections 304 B (dowry death), 302 (murder) and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy).

It is to note here that the respondent/accused, after absconding for two years agreed to co-operate with the investigating agency and simultaneously applied for  anticipatory bail after co-accused, her younger son, was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on the benefit of parity.

Case: 

Vipan Kr. Dhir vs State of Punjab and Another (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1161-1162) of 2021

DOJ: 4.10.2021.