Dr Naresh Kumar Mangla vs Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. etc.

demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment of moneys by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased – The FIR even referred to the telephone calls which were received from the fatherin-law of the deceased – In the face of such specific allegations in the FIR and the reference by the Session Judge to the money transaction, the conclusion of the Single Judge of the High Court that the FIR prima facie has been ‘engineered to implicate the accused’ defies reasonable explanation – Similar is the case with the finding that ‘there is no co-relation between the allegations leveled in the FIR’ – A reading of the FIR would reveal that the finding of the Single Judge that the allegations ‘are general without assigning a specific role to the accused’ is contrary to the record – The entire approach of the High Court is flawed – The grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation – Therefore, the orders passed by the Single Judge of the High Court allowing the applications for anticipatory bail are set aside and bail granted to the accused persons is cancelled.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Transfer of further investigation to CBI – Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-B – Dowry death – Appellant’s daughter died an unnatural death – According to the respondent-accused persons, she committed suicide – It was alleged in the FIR that appellant’s daughter-deceased was pressurized to bring money – There were prior allegations of assault against the accused persons/in-laws of appellant’s daughter – The application for anticipatory bail filed by the in-laws of appellant’s daughter was rejected by the Session Judge – However, applications were allowed by the High Court – Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted – Before the Supreme Court, the State filed counter-affidavit through Deputy Superintendent of Police and stated that the High Court has not taken into consideration the prior allegations of assault/injuries sustained by deceased in the year 2017 – It was further stated that the medical reports and facts revealed that deceased was killed – The State supported the appellant in assailing the correctness of the order granting anticipatory bail – According to the State no investigation on allegation of murder was conducted – Held: The conduct of the investigating authorities from the stage of arriving at the scene of occurrence to the filing of the charge-sheet do not inspire confidence – The stance taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the counter-affidavit filed few days after forwarding the charge-sheet, travels beyond the scope of the investigation recorded in the charge-sheet – The critical facts of money trail between the deceased, her father and the accused; and the call history of father-in-law of deceased, father of deceased and the deceased were not explored – No investigation on allegation of murder was conducted – There were glaring deficiencies in the investigation conducted – The status of the accused as propertied and wealthy persons of influence and the conduct of the investigation thus far diminishes the faith of Court in directing a further investigation by the same authorities – Therefore, it is necessary to entrust a further investigation of the case to the CBI in exercise of power u/Art.142 of the Constitution. Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. There is no cogent basis for the Single Judge of the High Court to have arrived at findings that (a) “the FIR prima facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants”; (b) “there is no co-relation in between the various allegations leveled in the FIR”; and (c) the allegations “are general in nature” with no specific role being assigned to the accused. The informant had suffered a loss of his own daughter due to an unnatural death in close proximity to the lodging of his complaint. The FIR contains a reference to the previous incident of October 2017, to the demands for dowry, payments of money in cheque by the informant to the groom’s family and the telephone calls received by the informant from the father-in-law of the deceased and later from the deceased in close proximity to the incident, on the same day that she died. The FIR contains specific allegations against the accused, commencing with the incident of October 2017. Whether such an incident, as reported by the deceased to the police on

01 October 2017 did take place, leading to her suffering injuries which were examined at the Government Hospital, is a matter for investigation. How the Single Judge could have concluded – in the face of specific allegations in the FIR and the reference by the Sessions Judge to money transactions - that the FIR prima facie has been “engineered to implicate the accused” defies reasonable explanation. Similar is the case with the finding that ORS. ETC.

“there is no co-relation between the allegations leveled in the FIR.” A reading of the FIR would reveal that the finding of the Single Judge that the allegations “are general without assigning a specific role to the accused” is contrary to the record. The Single Judge observed, from the income tax returns of the accused, that “it cannot be said that they are not of sufficient means”. The Single Judge has erred in drawing this inference without a full investigation by the investigating arm of the state. The respondent-accused as sought to rely on the payment of monies to the deceased by the two hospital establishments, the transfer of funds for the purchase of properties and the joint ownership of properties. The trail of monies alleged to be received by the deceased for her professional work is a matter to be investigated. Similarly, the transfer of monies by the deceased to her father-in-law and the nexus, if any, with the funds which she had received from her parents is a matter for serious investigation. The death was unnatural which took place within seven years of the marriage. The alleged phone calls received by the informant from some of the accused and by the deceased on the day when she was found to be hanging are matters which required to be probed. The alleged absence of an external injury on the body of the deceased is a matter for investigation. The approach of the High Court is casual. The surmises which are contained in the reasons recorded by the High Court have no basis in the materials with which it was confronted. The observation of the High Court that no specific role is assigned in the FIR to the accused is based on a misreading of the FIR. The entire approach of the High Court is flawed. [Para 14][313-B-H; 314-A]

2. Judged in the light of the settled legal principles, the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is unsustainable. The FIR contains a recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment of moneys by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased. The FIR has referred to the telephone calls which were received both from the father-inlaw of the deceased on the morning of 03 August 2020 and from the deceased on two occasions on the same day- a few hours before her body was found. The grant of anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation. The FIR by a father who has suffered the death of his daughter in these circumstances cannot be regarded as “engineered” to falsely implicate the spouse of the deceased and his family. [Para 19][320-B-D]

3. Having regard to the circumstances which have emerged on the record, which have been adverted to in the earlier part of the judgment, this Court is of the view that it is necessary to entrust a further investigation of the case to the CBI in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The conduct of the investigating authorities from the stage of arriving at the scene of occurrence to the filing of the chargesheet do not inspire confidence in the robustness of the process. A perusal of the charge-sheet evinces a perfunctory rendition of the investigating authorities’ duty by a bare reference to the facts and the presumption under Section 304B of the IPC when the death occurs within seven years of the marriage. The stance taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Counter Affidavit, filed a few days after forwarding the charge-sheet, travels beyond the scope of the investigation recorded in the charge-sheet with respect to the veracity of the suicide note, medical examination of injuries and the past miscarriages of the deceased. Critical facts of the money trail between the deceased, her father (the informant), and the accused; and the call history of A2, the informant and the deceased are unexplored. No attempt at custodial interrogation of the applicants was made between the issuance of non-bailable warrants on 09 September 2020 and interim protection from arrest by the High Court granted on 22 September 2020. As noted above, upon questioning during the hearing, the Counsel for the State answered that no investigation on the allegation of murder had been conducted. It would indeed be a travesty if this Court were to ignore the glaring deficiencies in the investigation conducted so far, irrespective of the stage of the proceedings or the nature of the question before this Court. The status of the accused as propertied and wealthy persons of influence in Agra and the conduct of the investigation thus far ORS. ETC.

diminishes this Court’s faith in directing a further investigation by the same authorities. The cause of justice would not be served if the Court were to confine the scope of its examination to the wisdom of granting anticipatory bail and ignore the possibility of a trial being concluded on the basis of a deficient investigation at best or a biased one at worst. [Para 23][325-D-H; 326-A-B]

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201; Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 : [2012] 5 SCR 1; Sushila Agarwal v. NCT of Delhi (2020) 5 SCC 1: [2020] 2 SCR 1; Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180 : [2012] 10 SCR 847; Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana

(2020) 2 SCC 743; Pokar Ram v.. State of

Rajasthan,(1985) 2 SCC 597: [1985] 3 SCR 780;

Arnab Goswami v. Union of India WP (Crl) 130 of 2020, decided on 19 May 2020; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad (2013)

5 SCC 762: [2012] 13 SCR 1005; Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135: [2016] 11 SCR 560;

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC

160: [2016] 1 SCR 194 – relied on.

Puran v. Ramvilas (2001) 6 SCC 338; [2001] 3 SCR

432 ; State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21: [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Jaiprakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379: [2012] 5 SCR 1; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015]

10 SCR 802; State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC

187: [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 737; Adri Narayan Das v. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303: [2005]

2 SCR 188 – referred to.