Bail – Dowry death alleged – Respondent no.2-accused, the mother-in- law of the deceased charged u/ss.304B, 302 r/w 120B – Anticipatory bail granted – Held: Offence alleged in the instant case is heinous – High Court swayed by the fact that the accused was co-operating with investigation – However, this is contrary to the record as she remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender – She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court – Further, ground of parity with co-accused, her younger son (brotherin-law of the deceased) invoked by the High Court is unwarranted – Allegations in the FIR against her and her younger son are materially different – Impugned order set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304B, 302 r/w s.120B.
Bail – Cancellation of vis-a-vis grant of – Distinction – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. 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. While granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. Each case has its own unique factual scenario which holds the key for adjudication of bail matters including cancellation thereof. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous. In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by the fact that the Accused was ‘co operating’ with investigation. This is, however, contrary to the record as the Accused remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as Magistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court in the 2nd round of bail proceedings. The ground of parity with co-accused, her younger son (brother-in-law of the deceased) invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent-Mother-inLaw and her younger son are materially different. It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are other specific allegations accusing the Accused of playing a key role in the alleged offence. The High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in favour of the Accused. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The Accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court. [Paras 9-12, 14 and 16][1141-B-C; 1142-A-D, E-F, G-H; 1143-A, B, F]
Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; X vs. State of Telegana (2018) 16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.