Read Time: 11 minutes

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana on Monday revoked the anticipatory bail granted to a mother-in-law who was the primary accused in an alleged dowry death case.

“…. the Respondent­-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,” said the Court.

Court lamented the untimely death of the newly wed, noting that it is imperative for the investigating agency to have a free hand in digging out the role, if any, of her mother-in-law.

“It has to be borne in mind that the deceased met with a tragic end within three months of her marriage…. 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 Respondent-­Accused is the mother­-in­-law of the deceased. The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the Respondent-­Accused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter-in-law”, added the Bench.

The father of the deceased woman filed an appeal against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of which the accused was granted anticipatory bail in January.

An FIR was lodged again four family members in 2017 who allegedly harassed and physically tortured the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands.

The daughter of the appellant died an unnatural death in October 2017 under suspicious circumstances, after she was clandestinely administered poison, the factum of which was supported by medical evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency.

The court noted that soon after the FIR was lodged, the Respondent-­Accused (mother in law) moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. She had then approached the High Court for a similar relief, but the petition was dismissed as withdrawn in March 2018.

Meanwhile, on account of non­ cooperation with the ongoing investigation, the SHO of the concerned police station applied for and got issued arrest warrants against the Respondent­-Accused from the Judicial Magistrate.

The same could not be executed unfortunately, as the Respondent­-Accused ran away and was thus declared an absconder in April 2018 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure.

It was further found that the accused Mother-in-law continued to evade arrest till her younger son was granted anticipatory bail, which is when she filed two petitions before the High Court, seeking quashing of the order that declared her a ‘proclaimed offender’ and further sought the relief of anticipatory bail.

Both these petitions were later allowed by the High Court.

While hearing the appeal filed by the aggrieved father, the Court said that,

“At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well­-settled legal principle that 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.”

A Bench of CJ NV Ramana with Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli further said that 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.   It went on to add:

“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.”

It was further found that the High Court was swayed by the fact that Respondent­-Accused was ‘cooperating’ with investigation which in fact was contrary to the record as she remained absconding for more than two and chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail.

The ground of parity with younger son who was a co­-accused. invoked by the High Court was equally unwarranted, said the Bench.

“The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent­-Mother­-in­-Law and her younger son Daksh Adya 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 Respondent-­Accused of playing a key role in the alleged offence.”

With this view the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Respondent­-Accused to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one week.

 

Cause Title: Vipan Kumar Dhir v State of Punjab and Anr

Click here to access a copy of the Judgment.