2005 JTR(SC) 198
2005 27 AIC 93 ; 2005 2 AICLR 1 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 790 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 767 ; 2005 1 AllCJ 636 ; 2005 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1044 ; 2005 2 BBCJ(SC) 196 ; 2005 2 CriCC 132 ; 2005 CriLR 104 ; 2005 2 CriLR(Cal) 7 ; 2005 1 Crimes(SC) 283 ; 2005 CrLJ 1416 ; 2005 1 DMC 335 ; 2005 2 EastCrC(SC) 128 ; 2005 2 GLH 700 ; 2005 1 HinduLR 641 ; 2005 ILR(Kar) 1374 ; 2005 1 JCC 343 ; 2005 2 JLJR(SC) 29 ; 2005 2 JT 105 ; 2005 1 OLR 541 ; 2005 1 PLJR(SC) 453 ; 2005 1 RCR(Cri) 987 ; 2005 1 Scale 754 ; 2005 2 SCC 686 ; 2005 SCC(Cri) 556 ; 2005 2 UJ 376 ; 2005 1 WLC 450 ; 2005 KHC 432 ; 2005 1 Supreme 766
2005(1) Supreme 766
Supreme Court of India
(From Calcutta High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
M.P. Lohia —Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 991 of 2004)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2005
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1302/2004)
And
Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2005
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1829/2004)
Decided on 4-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mahabir Singh, Vikram Choudhary, Ajay Pal and Nikhil Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Pradip K. Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Advocates.
Important pointFor offence under Sections 304B, 406, 498A, IPC, appellants are granted anticipatory bail on conditions statutorily imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.438, S.438(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.34, S.406, S.304(b), S.498(a)
(A) The Indian Penal Code sections 304B, 406, and 498A read with section 34 address offences related to dowry death, criminal breach of trust, and cruelty towards a married woman, engaged in this case where the deceased spouse died by suicide and the appellants faced charges for allegedly demanding dowry and harassing her. The CrPC section 438 and its subsection 438(2) govern the grant of anticipatory bail, which the courts below denied, and section 34 of the IPC establishes joint liability for acts done in furtherance of a common intention, relevant to apportioning blame among the accused. These statutory provisions frame the inquiry into whether the appellants are entitled to relief under the anticipatory bail framework while safeguarding the trial from prejudgment media influence.
(B) Key legal principles include: anticipatory bail is to ensure the accuseds presence during trial and not to determine guilt; courts must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to flee or misuse their liberty; the granting of bail does not foreclose the trial; and media reports capable of prejudicing a pending trial must be discouraged to uphold the rule of law and administration of justice.
Facts of the case:
The deceased woman, married to the appellant in February 2002, lived in Ludhiana while her parents resided in Calcutta. She died by suicide in October 2003 at her parents home. The appellants were charged under Sections 304B, 406, and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly harassing her over dowry demands, causing her depression and leading to suicide. Medical history indicated she was a schizophrenic patient under treatment. Both sides produced documents, with the prosecution alleging dowry harassment and the defence asserting cordial relations and attributing death to illness. The trial was ongoing, and lower courts denied anticipatory bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that it was not the appropriate stage to assess the merits of the case or the genuineness of documents, as that would prejudice the trial. It noted the disturbing media coverage in a magazine that could interfere with justice administration and expressed disapproval, treating the matter as closed. The court held that the appellants could be granted anticipatory bail subject to specified conditions, including a monetary bond and compliance with CrPC provisions, ensuring their availability for investigation without custodial interrogation.
Issues:
Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC despite the rejection by lower courts, and whether the trial would be prejudiced by media reporting on the subjudice matter.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court balanced the right to liberty under the principle of anticipatory bail against the need to ensure the accuseds presence during investigation, concluding that bail could be granted with structured conditions to secure attendance without undermining the investigation, while condemning media interference in a pending trial.
Result:
Appeals allowed; anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with a surety for like amount, subject to CrPC Section 438(2) conditions and noncustodial interrogation with one weeks notice.
(A) The Indian Penal Code sections 304B, 406, and 498A read with section 34 address offences related to dowry death, criminal breach of trust, and cruelty towards a married woman, engaged in this case where the deceased spouse died by suicide and the appellants faced charges for allegedly demanding dowry and harassing her. The CrPC section 438 and its subsection 438(2) govern the grant of anticipatory bail, which the courts below denied, and section 34 of the IPC establishes joint liability for acts done in furtherance of a common intention, relevant to apportioning blame among the accused. These statutory provisions frame the inquiry into whether the appellants are entitled to relief under the anticipatory bail framework while safeguarding the trial from prejudgment media influence.
(B) Key legal principles include: anticipatory bail is to ensure the accuseds presence during trial and not to determine guilt; courts must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to flee or misuse their liberty; the granting of bail does not foreclose the trial; and media reports capable of prejudicing a pending trial must be discouraged to uphold the rule of law and administration of justice.
Facts of the case:
The deceased woman, married to the appellant in February 2002, lived in Ludhiana while her parents resided in Calcutta. She died by suicide in October 2003 at her parents home. The appellants were charged under Sections 304B, 406, and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly harassing her over dowry demands, causing her depression and leading to suicide. Medical history indicated she was a schizophrenic patient under treatment. Both sides produced documents, with the prosecution alleging dowry harassment and the defence asserting cordial relations and attributing death to illness. The trial was ongoing, and lower courts denied anticipatory bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that it was not the appropriate stage to assess the merits of the case or the genuineness of documents, as that would prejudice the trial. It noted the disturbing media coverage in a magazine that could interfere with justice administration and expressed disapproval, treating the matter as closed. The court held that the appellants could be granted anticipatory bail subject to specified conditions, including a monetary bond and compliance with CrPC provisions, ensuring their availability for investigation without custodial interrogation.
Issues:
Whether the appellants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC despite the rejection by lower courts, and whether the trial would be prejudiced by media reporting on the subjudice matter.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court balanced the right to liberty under the principle of anticipatory bail against the need to ensure the accuseds presence during investigation, concluding that bail could be granted with structured conditions to secure attendance without undermining the investigation, while condemning media interference in a pending trial.
Result:
Appeals allowed; anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with a surety for like amount, subject to CrPC Section 438(2) conditions and noncustodial interrogation with one weeks notice.
Judgment
Santosh Hegde, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants in these appeals have been charged for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC. Their applications for the grant of anticipatory bail have been rejected by the courts below. Daughter of the complainant Chandni (since deceased) was married to the appellant in the third appeal before us. Their marriage took place on 18th February, 2002. The appellants live in Ludhiana whereas the complainant and his family are residents of Calcutta. Chandni committed suicide on 28th of October, 2003 at her parents house in Calcutta. It is the case of the appellants herein that the deceased was a schizophrenic psychotic patient with cyclic depression and was under medical treatment. Though she was living in the matrimonial home often went to Calcutta to reside with her parents and she was also being treated by doctors there for the above-mentioned ailments.
3. While the complaint against the appellants is that they were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of wedding and were harassing the deceased continuously, consequent to which she developed depression and even though the parents of the deceased tried to assure the appellants that they would try to meet their demand of the dowry, the deceased was being treated cruelty at her matrimonial home and her husband had no love and affection to her because of which she developed depression.
4. It has also come on record that the deceased had tried to commit suicide at the residence of her parents sometime in July, 2002 i.e. about a year earlier than the actual date of her death.
5. On behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the defence, large number of documents have been produced to show that the appellants were demanding dowry because of which the deceased was depressed and ultimately committed suicide. Per contra the documents from the side of the defence show that the relationship between the husband, wife and the in-laws were cordial and it was only illness of the deceased that was the cause of her premature death.
6. One thing is obvious that there has been an attempt on the part of both the sides to create documents either to establish the criminal case against the appellants or on the part of the appellants to create evidence to defend themselves from such criminal charges. Correctness or genuineness of this document can only be gone into in a full-fledged trial and it will not be safe to place reliance on any one of these documents at this stage. Therefore, we would venture not to comment on the genuineness of these documents at this stage. Suffice it to say that this is a matter to be considered at the trial.
7. In this background the only question for our consideration at this stage is whether the appellants be granted anticipatory bail or not.
8. As stated above, any expression of opinion on the merits of the case except to the extent of finding out prima facie whether the appellants are entitled for anticipatory bail or not, would likely to effect the trial. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire material available on record without expressing any opinion on the same, we think it appropriate that the appellants should be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) each and one surety for the like sum by each appellants to the satisfaction of the Court or the arresting authority as the case may be. We direct that the appellants shall abide by the conditions statutorily imposed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further direct that in the event of the investigating agency requiring the presence of the appellants for the purpose of investigation they be given one week’s notice and they shall appear before such investigating agency and their presence at such investigation shall not exceed two days at a time but such interrogation shall not be a custodial interrogation. They shall be entitled to have their counsel present at the time of such interrogation.
9. Having gone through the records, we find one disturbing factor which we feel is necessary to comment upon in the interest of justice. The death of Chandni took place on 28th February, 2002 and the complaint in this regard was registered and the investigation was in progress. The application for grant of anticipatory bail was disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta on 13.2.2004 and special leave petition was pending before this Court. Even then an article has appeared in a magazine called ‘Saga’ titled “Doomed by Dowry” written by one Kakoli Poddar based on her interview of the family of the deceased. Giving version of the tragedy and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his version of the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist who were responsible for the said article against indulging in such trial by media when the issue is subjudiced. However, to prevent any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat this matter as closed and hope that the other concerned in journalism would take note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice.
10. For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and the same are allowed.
Appeal allowed.