1994 JTR(SC) 1188
1994 3 Crimes(SC) 1013 ; 1995 1 JT 127 ; 1994 4 Scale 1119 ; 1995 1 SCC 349 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE DR A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
DOLAT RAM AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 1994{From the Judgment and Order dated 8-9-1994 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 6266-M of 1994}
Decided on 24-11-1994
Advocates appeared:
Prem Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellants;
K.C. Bajaj, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.439(2), S.438, S.437(5)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.304(b)
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include Section 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 439(2), 438, and 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 304(b) presumes dowry death where a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for dowry demands, shifting the evidentiary burden. Sections 438 and 439(2) govern the powers of a High Court or Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail, while Section 437(5) allows for the grant of bail in non-bailable offences. These provisions apply directly where an order of anticipatory bail is challenged after an FIR alleging dowry death, requiring the court to balance the gravity of the allegation with the principles of personal liberty and fair trial.
(B) Key legal principles include that dowry death is a serious offence attracting stringent scrutiny, but the grant of anticipatory bail is not negated merely by the nature of the accusation. The cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted is an exceptional measure requiring cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as interference with justice, evasion of trial, or a demonstrated risk of absconding. Courts must distinguish between the grounds for denying bail at the initial stage and the grounds for cancelling bail once granted, avoiding mechanical approaches and ensuring that the accused is not deprived of liberty without sufficient justification.
Facts of the case:
An FIR registered in November 1993 alleged the dowry death of a woman named Smt Sunita, wife of Anil Kumar. The parents of Anil Kumar and his brother moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, who granted them anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds and sureties, while denying bail to Anil Kumar. The State of Haryana petitioned the High Court to cancel the anticipatory bail, which was cancelled by the High Court on the ground that no prima facie case was made out and the accused were living separately from the deceased. An appeal was filed challenging the cancellation of bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in stating that the accused were possibly roped in falsely, as the investigation was at a preliminary stage. However, the High Court erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail, as the relevant factors for denial of bail at the initial stage were improperly applied to the cancellation stage. The court noted that there was no material indicating that the appellants had abused the concession of bail and that the distinction between initial rejection and cancellation of bail had been overlooked.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants in a dowry death case on the grounds that no prima facie case was made out and the deceased was living separately from the husband, and whether the principles applicable at the stage of rejecting bail were correctly applied at the stage of cancelling already granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi:
The cancellation of anticipatory bail after it has been granted requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as an abuse of the concession or a demonstrated risk of absconding or interference with justice. The court must consider whether supervening circumstances have rendered bail no longer conducive to a fair trial, and must not mechanically apply the grounds relevant to the initial rejection of bail to the cancellation stage.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge restoring anticipatory bail with the same bail conditions is reinstated.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include Section 304(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 439(2), 438, and 437(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 304(b) presumes dowry death where a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and there is evidence of cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for dowry demands, shifting the evidentiary burden. Sections 438 and 439(2) govern the powers of a High Court or Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail, while Section 437(5) allows for the grant of bail in non-bailable offences. These provisions apply directly where an order of anticipatory bail is challenged after an FIR alleging dowry death, requiring the court to balance the gravity of the allegation with the principles of personal liberty and fair trial.
(B) Key legal principles include that dowry death is a serious offence attracting stringent scrutiny, but the grant of anticipatory bail is not negated merely by the nature of the accusation. The cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted is an exceptional measure requiring cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as interference with justice, evasion of trial, or a demonstrated risk of absconding. Courts must distinguish between the grounds for denying bail at the initial stage and the grounds for cancelling bail once granted, avoiding mechanical approaches and ensuring that the accused is not deprived of liberty without sufficient justification.
Facts of the case:
An FIR registered in November 1993 alleged the dowry death of a woman named Smt Sunita, wife of Anil Kumar. The parents of Anil Kumar and his brother moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, who granted them anticipatory bail on furnishing bonds and sureties, while denying bail to Anil Kumar. The State of Haryana petitioned the High Court to cancel the anticipatory bail, which was cancelled by the High Court on the ground that no prima facie case was made out and the accused were living separately from the deceased. An appeal was filed challenging the cancellation of bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in stating that the accused were possibly roped in falsely, as the investigation was at a preliminary stage. However, the High Court erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail, as the relevant factors for denial of bail at the initial stage were improperly applied to the cancellation stage. The court noted that there was no material indicating that the appellants had abused the concession of bail and that the distinction between initial rejection and cancellation of bail had been overlooked.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants in a dowry death case on the grounds that no prima facie case was made out and the deceased was living separately from the husband, and whether the principles applicable at the stage of rejecting bail were correctly applied at the stage of cancelling already granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi:
The cancellation of anticipatory bail after it has been granted requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as an abuse of the concession or a demonstrated risk of absconding or interference with justice. The court must consider whether supervening circumstances have rendered bail no longer conducive to a fair trial, and must not mechanically apply the grounds relevant to the initial rejection of bail to the cancellation stage.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge restoring anticipatory bail with the same bail conditions is reinstated.
K.C.BAJAJ, PREM MALHOTRA
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8-11-1993, relating to the alleged dowry death of Smt Sunita - wife of Anil Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of the husband of the deceased Smt Sunita and directed that they be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 10,000 each with one surety each of the like amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been granted to the husband - Anil Kumar The State of Haryana filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 12-11-1993. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 8-9-1994, cancelled the bail observing:
"Dowry death is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No positive finding has been recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge in his order to the effect that the respondents and the deceased were living separately. No prima facie case is made out which could justify the grant of anticipatory bail. To my view of thinking, concession of anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, was totally uncalled for. The order dated 12-11-1993 is, therefore, set aside and the respondents are directed to be taken into custody."
The appellants are aggrieved of the cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to them. Hence this appeal.
3. It appears to us that whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in observing in the last paragraph of his order while granting anticipatory bail "it appears that possibly these accused-appellants have been roped in falsely", at that initial stage, when possibly the investigation was not even completed let alone, any evidence had been led at the trial, the High Court also fell in error in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed that even according to the statement in the FIR, the appellants were living separately from the deceased and her husband and that the factum of separate residence was also supported by the ration card. These considerations were relevant considerations for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, for the reasons given by the High Court, was not justified. Nothing has been brought to our notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the intervening period.
6. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12-11-1993.
For Citation: (1995) 1 SCC 349
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.