{"id":255224,"date":"2021-10-06T14:00:21","date_gmt":"2021-10-06T08:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=255224"},"modified":"2021-10-08T09:20:08","modified_gmt":"2021-10-08T03:50:08","slug":"dowry-death-absconding-mother-in-laws-bail-cancelled-sc-enunciates-principles-for-cancellation-of-bail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/06\/dowry-death-absconding-mother-in-laws-bail-cancelled-sc-enunciates-principles-for-cancellation-of-bail\/","title":{"rendered":"Dowry Death| Absconding mother-in-law’s alleged ‘key role’ not at par with deceased’s brother-in-law. Bail cancelled: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant*<\/strong> and Hima Kohli, JJ has explained the principles governing cancellation of bail and has held that it is necessary that \u2018cogent and overwhelming reasons\u2019 are present for the cancellation of bail.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cConventionally, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Principles governing the cancellation of bail<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Daulat\u00a0Ram v.\u00a0State of Haryana<\/span>, (1995)\u00a01\u00a0SCC\u00a0349<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cRejection of bail in a non\u00acbailable 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Adding to the abovementioned position, the Court, in the present case, said that<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What was the case about? <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The Court was hearing the case wherein the mother-in-law of the deceased was charged under Sections 304B, 302 read with 120B fter the deceased\u2019s father alleged that, just two months into her marriage with the accused, his daughter died an unnatural death in suspicious circumstances . In these twi months, the accused family members harassed and physically tortured the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands.<\/p>\n

After two failed failed attempts of seeking anticipatory bail, the mother-in-law went on a run and was declared an absconder. She continued to evade arrest until Supreme Court granted bail to her younger son i.e. deceased\u2019s brother-in-law.<\/p>\n

Taking advantage of this subsequent event and presenting the same as a material change in \u00a0circumstance, she filed two petitions before the High Court, seeking quashing of the order that declared her a \u2018proclaimed offender\u2019 and further sought the relief of anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noticed that<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026 the High\u00a0\u00a0 Court\u00a0\u00a0 seems\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 have\u00a0\u00a0 been primarily swayed by the fact that the Respondent-Accused was \u2018co-operating\u2019 with investigation. This is, however, contrary to the record as the Respondent\u00acAccused 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\u2019s Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court in the 2nd round of bail proceedings.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On procedural irregularity in declaring the deceased\u2019s mother-in-law as an absconder<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court held that even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Respondent-Accused\u00a0\u00a0 as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre-arrest bail in a case of grave offence save where the High Court on perusal of case-diary and other material on record is, prima facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or overexaggerated accusation. Such being not the case here, the High Court went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent-Accused.<\/p>\n

On ground of parity with the deceased\u2019s brother in law <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent\u00acMother\u00acin-Law and her younger son are materially different. While some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are\u00a0\u00a0 other specific allegations accusing the Respondent\u00ac Mother\u00acin-Law of playing a key role in the alleged offence.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe conduct of the Respondent\u00acAccused 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 co0accused with whom she seeks parity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n
\n

\u201cThe offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and protrudes our medieval social\u00a0\u00a0 structure which\u00a0\u00a0 still wails for reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Court noticed that it has to be borne in mind that the deceased met with a tragic end within three\u00a0\u00a0 months of her marriage and a young life came to an abrupt end befor realizing any of her dreams which were grimly shattered.\u00a0\u00a0 She having died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, the Investigating Agency, deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the Respondent-Mother-in-law, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter in-law.<\/p>\n

[Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab,\u00a0 2021 SCC OnLine SC 854<\/b><\/a>, decided on 04.10.2021]<\/p>\n

\n

*Judgment by: Justice Surya Kant<\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Justice Surya Kant<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n