SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN GROUNDS FOR REVOKING BAIL
A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble #SupremeCourt of India comprising of Justices N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant and Hima Kohli passed a Judgment dated 04-10-2021 in the case of Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and another Criminal Appeal Nos.11611162 of 2021 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 54045405 of 2021) and held that the conduct of the #Accused, Gravity of Offence, Societal Impact etc. are grounds to revoke #bail.
In the present case, the Appellant (hereinafter ‘Complainant’), who is the father of the Deceased had lodged an FIR on 02-10-2017 against 7 Accused persons, 4 of whom were members of the in-laws family of the Deceased including the Respondent No. 2, who is the mother-in-law of the Deceased (hereinafter Respondent-Accused). The Complainant alleged that his daughter married the son of the Respondent-Accused on 28072017. Thereafter, the Deceased had to face harassment and was physically tortured by her in-laws on the pretext of dowry demands. His daughter died an unnatural death under suspicious circumstances on 02102017.
On 30092017 the Deceased contacted her father and informed him that she had to face humiliation and abuse because of her failure to meet their dowry demands. The Complainant assured his daughter that he would try to amicably settle the matter. However, that could never happen as on 01-10-2017 poison was administered to the Deceased which led to her unfortunate demise the following morning.
Subsequently, an FIR was lodged and the Respondent-Accused moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, however the same got rejected on 21-12-2017.
Dissatisfied, the Respondent-Accused No. 2 (mother-in-law) approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (High Court) for a similar relief, however the Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08-03-2018. Meanwhile, as she was not cooperating in the ongoing investigation, arrest warrants were issued by the SHO of the concerned Police Station against the Respondent-Accused. However, the arrest warrant could not be executed as the Respondent-Accused had been on the run and was declared an absconder on 23-04-2018 under the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Thereafter, the Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son on 22-10-2019. Hence, taking advantage of this situation, she filed two Petitions before the High Court for quashing the Order that declared her a ‘Proclaimed Offender’ and further sought the relief of anticipatory bail.
Subsequently, on 03-12-2020 the Respondent-Accused was granted interim bail and pursuant to that she joined the investigation on 07-12-2020. Thereafter, vide impugned Order dated 28-01-2021, the High Court allowed both the Petitions and the Order declaring the Respondent-Accused an absconder was set aside.
The grounds on which the Respondent-Accused was granted reliefs are as follows:
- The Respondent-Accused had joined the investigation later on and assured her presence at each date of trial proceedings.
- The Court had granted anticipatory bail to her younger son on 22-10-2019. Therefore, on the ground of parity she was entitled to the anticipatory bail.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, with the impugned Order dated 28-01-2021, the Complainant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India contending that the High Court erred in over-looking the well-established principles to be followed by the Courts while granting anticipatory bail.
After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the parties to the dispute, the Apex Court held that a superior Court has the power to revoke the bail granted to the accused by a lower Court if there has been an error in considering the relevant factors or the Court 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 Bench observed that the offence that has been alleged in the instant case is heinous in nature and the Accused had remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a Proclaimed Offender. In this regard the Apex Court, observed the following:
“The conduct of the Respondent-Accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary relief. These facts put her on a starkly different pedestal than the co-accused with whom she seeks parity.”
While setting aside the bail Order, the Court further observed: It has to be borne in mind that the Deceased met with a tragic end within three months of her marriage. While it is too early to term it an offence under Sections 302 or 304B I.P.C., but the fact remains that a young life came to an abrupt end before realizing any of her dreams which were grimly shattered. She died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The RespondentAccused is the motherinlaw of the Deceased. The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the RespondentAccused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter inlaw.
Thus, the Supreme Court while disposing of the Appeal set aside the impugned Order dated 28-01-2021, and directed the Respondent-Accused to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one week. The Supreme Court also observed that the Respondent-Accused was at liberty to apply for regular bail and that the observations made in the SLP are limited for the purposes of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case.
Suchitra Upadhyay
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Edited by
Sushila Ram Varma
Chief Consultant and Editor
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services