VIPAN KUMAR DHIR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1137

VIPAN KUMAR DHIR

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

(Criminal Appeal Nos.1161 – 1162 of 2021)

OCTOBER 04, 2021

[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT ANDHIMA KOHLI, JJ.]

Bail – Dowry death alleged – Respondent no.2-accused, themother-in- law of the deceased charged u/ss.304B, 302 r/w 120B –Anticipatory bail granted – Held: Offence alleged in the instantcase is heinous – High Court swayed by the fact that the accusedwas co-operating with investigation – However, this is contrary tothe record as she remained absconding for more than two yearsafter being declared proclaimed offender – She chose to joininvestigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court –Further, ground of parity with co-accused, her younger son (brother-in-law of the deceased) invoked by the High Court is unwarranted– Allegations in the FIR against her and her younger son arematerially different – Impugned order set aside – Penal Code, 1860– ss.304B, 302 r/w s.120B.

Bail – Cancellation of vis-a-vis grant of – Distinction –Discussed.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The cancellation of bail is to be dealt on differentfooting in comparison to proceeding for grant of bail. It isnecessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are presentfor the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can besupervening circumstances which may develop post the grant ofbail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary tocancel the bail. Bail can also be revoked where the court hasconsidered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant materialavailable on record which renders the order granting bail legallyuntenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused andsocietal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when theinvestigation is at the threshold, are also amongst few situations,where Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to preventthe miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of

Acriminal justice system. While granting bail, especially anticipatorybail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of theaccused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the familymembers of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating otherimpediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked.Each case has its own unique factual scenario which holds theBkey for adjudication of bail matters including cancellation thereof.The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous. In the case inhand, the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed bythe fact that the Accused was ‘co operating’ with investigation.This is, however, contrary to the record as the Accused remainedCabsconding for more than two years after being declared aproclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. She chose to joininvestigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court.She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well asMagistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from theHigh Court in the 2[nd] round of bail proceedings. The ground ofDparity with co-accused, her younger son (brother-in-law of thedeceased) invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted.The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent-Mother-in-Law and her younger son are materially different.

It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all theEfamily members are common but there are other specificallegations accusing the Accused of playing key role in thealleged offence. The High Court has wrongly accorded the benefitof parity in favour of the Accused. The impugned order ofthe High Court is set aside. The Accused is directed to surrenderFbefore the Trial Court. [Paras 9-12, 14 and 16][1141-B-C;1142-A-D, E-F, G-H; 1143-A, B, F]

Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1SCC 349 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; X vs. State ofTelegana (2018) 16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466 –relied on.

Case Law Reference

[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69relied on[2018] 4 SCR 466relied on

Para 9

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos.1161-1162 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2021 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-22197-2020 (O&M)and CRM-M-23495-2020 (O&M).

Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., S. S. Nehra, Arun Dagar, VikrantNehra, R. K. Gupta, H. S. Sachdeva, Rajendra Verma, Advs. for theAppellant.

Sunil Chadha, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh,Karanvir Gogia, Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Ms. Ashima Mandla, AkshayChadha, Anand Dilip Landge, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge laid is to an order dated 28.01.2021 passed bythe High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby anticipatory bail hasbeen granted to Respondent No.2 (hereafter ‘Respondent-Accused’),who is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is charged under Sections304B, 302 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

3. The prosecution version in brief is that the appellant (hereafter‘Complainant’), who is the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR dated02.10.2017 against 7 accused persons, 4 of whom are members of thein-laws family of the deceased including the Respondent-Accused. TheComplainant has alleged that his daughter was married to the son ofRespondent-accused on 28-07-2017. Soon thereafter, the accused familymembers started to harass and physically torture the deceased on thepretext of dowry demands. His daughter died an unnatural death on02-10-2017 in suspicious circumstances. There are specific allegationsvis-a-vis Respondent-Accused alleging that she exploited the deceasedand deprived her of any chance to recuperate from the arduous domesticchores. This was despite the fact that deceased was also working as afull-time lecturer in the local government college. It was further allegedthat due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demands, the vicious cycle ofhumiliation and abuse continued to be meted out to the deceased. Thedeceased contacted the Complainant on 30-09-2017 and informed thatshe had been again physically tortured because of her failure to meet

Atheir dowry demands. The Complainant assured that he would try toamicably settle this household squabble by coming to her marital homeon the very next day. However, this assurance could never be materialisedas the accused are alleged to have clandestinely administered poison tothe deceased on 01.10.2017, which led to her unfortunate demise thefollowing morning. It is to be noted that the factum of poisoning isBsupported by medical evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency.

4. Soon after the FIR was lodged, the Respondent-Accused movedan anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which wasrejected on 21.12.2017. Discontented, the Respondent-Accusedapproached the High Court for similar relief, but the petition wasCdismissed as withdrawn on 08.03.2018. Meanwhile, on account ofnon-cooperation with the ongoing investigation, the SHO of the concernedpolice station applied for and got issued arrest warrants against theRespondent-Accused from Judicial Magistrate. However, the arrestwarrant could not be executed as the Respondent-Accused had been onDthe run and she was thus declared an absconder on 23-04-2018 underSection 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”).5. The Respondent-Accused continued to evade her arrest untilthis Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son Daksh Adya(brother-in-law of the deceased) on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, takingEadvantage of this subsequent event and presenting the same as materialchange in circumstance, Respondent-Accused filed two petitions beforethe High Court, seeking quashing of the order that declared her a‘proclaimed offender’ and further sought the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. It is noted explicitly that during the pendency of the above-Fmentioned proceedings, the High Court granted interim bail to theRespondent-Accused on 03.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, she joinedthe investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter, vide the impugned order,High Court allowed both the petitions and set aside the order declaringthe Respondent-Accused as an absconder and also granted heranticipatory bail. These reliefs were primarily allowed on two grounds -Gfirstly that the Respondent-Accused had joined the investigation andundertook to remain present at each date of trial proceedings; secondlyshe was entitled to seek parity with the co-accused Daksh Adya whomthis Court granted anticipatory bail.

7. The aggrieved Complainant is before us, contending inter-alia,Hthat the High Court has committed grave error of law in over-looking

the well-established principles which guide courts to exercise theirdiscretion in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Learned StateCounsel has also supported the cause of Appellant-Complainant.

8. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length andperused the relevant material placed on record.

9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well-settledlegal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on differentfooting in comparison to proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessarythat ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for the cancellationof bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances whichmay develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial,making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram andothers vs. State of Haryana[1 ]observed that:

“Rejection of bail in non-bailable case at the initial stageand the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be consideredand dealt with on different basis. Very cogent andoverwhelming circumstances are necessary for an orderdirecting the cancellation of the bail, already granted.Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail,broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference orattempt to interfere with the due course of administration ofJustice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justiceor abuse of the concession granted to the accused in anymanner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of materialplaced on the record of the possibility of the accusedabsconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellationof bail.However, bail once granted should not be cancelledin mechanical manner without considering whether anysupervening circumstances have rendered it no longerconducive to fair trial to allow the accused to retain hisfreedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.”

These principles have been reiterated time and again, more recentlyby 3-judge Bench of this Court in X vs. State of Telegana andAnother.[2]

1 (1995) 1 SCC 349 at 4.

2 (2018) 16 SCC 511 at 14-15.

A10. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), bailcan also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factorsor has ignored relevant material available on record which renders theorder granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence, conductof the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Courtwhen the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst fewBsituations, where Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail toprevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration ofcriminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that whilegranting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary innature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses,Cthreatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice orcreating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to beoverlooked.

11. Broadly speaking, each case has its own unique factual scenariowhich holds the key for adjudication of bail matters including cancellationthereof. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and protrudesDour medieval social structure which still wails for reforms despite multipleefforts made by Legislation and Judiciary.

12. In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have beenprimarily swayed by the fact that the Respondent-Accused was‘co-operating’ with investigation. This is, however, contrary to the recordEas the Respondent-Accused remained absconding for more than twoyears after being declared proclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. Shechose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the HighCourt. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well asMagistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the HighCourt in the 2[nd] round of bail proceedings.F

13. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring theRespondent-Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not justifiableground to grant pre-arrest bail in case of grave offence save wherethe High Court on perusal of case-diary and other material on record is,prima facie, satisfied that it is case of false or over-exaggeratedGaccusation. Such being not the case here, the High Court went on awrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent-Accused.

14. The ground of parity with co-accused Daksh Adya invokedby the High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIRagainst the Respondent-Mother-in-Law and her younger son DakshHAdya are materially different. It is indubitable that some of the allegations

against all the family members are common but there are other specificallegations accusing the Respondent-Accused of playing key role inthe alleged offence. The conduct of the Respondent-Accused inabsconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason shouldhave weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary relief. Thesefacts put her on starkly different pedestal than the co-accused withwhom she seeks parity. We are, thus, of the considered view that theHigh Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in favour of theRespondent-Accused. It has to be borne in mind that the deceased metwith tragic end within three months of her marriage. While it is tooearly to term it an offence under Sections 302 or 304B I.P.C., but thefact remains that young life came to an abrupt end before realizing anyof her dreams which were grimly shattered. She died an unnatural deathin her matrimonial home. The Respondent-Accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves afree hand to investigate the role of the Respondent-Accused, if any, inthe unnatural and untimely death of her daughter in-law.15. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-Accused maybe right in contending that the Appellant-Complainant has widened thenet and included even other than the family members of the in-laws ofthe deceased. According to him, the entire version of the Appellant-Complainant should be seen with suspicious eyes as he being retiredDistrict Attorney, has legally trained mind. We do not deem it necessaryto comment upon this contention at this stage. Suffice to mention thatthe needle of suspicion revolves around only against the Respondent-Accused and her family members while at this stage the others havebeen found innocent by the investigating agency.

16. In light of the above discussion and without expressing anyviews on merit, we set aside the impugned order of the High Courtdated 28.01.2021 and direct the Respondent-Accused to surrender beforethe Trial Court within period of one week. We make it clear that theobservations made herein above are limited for the purposes of presentproceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits ofthe case. We also clarify that after the surrender, the Respondent-Accused will be free to seek regular bail before the concerned TrialCourt and any such prayer shall be decided as per law, without beinginfluenced by this order.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

Divya Pandey

Appeals disposed of.