REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.11611162 OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NOS. 54045405 OF 2021)
Vipan Kumar Dhir ..... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2. The challenge laid is to an order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby anticipatory bail has been
granted to Respondent No.2 (hereafter ‘RespondentAccused’), who is
the motherinlaw of the deceased and is charged under Sections
304B, 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 dated
02.10.2017 against 7 accused persons, 4 of whom are members of the
inlaws family of the deceased including the RespondentAccused. The
Page | 1
Complainant has alleged that his daughter was married to the son of
Respondentaccused on 28072017. Soon thereafter, the accused
family members started to harass and physically torture the deceased
on the pretext of dowry demands. His daughter died an unnatural
death on 02102017 in suspicious circumstances. There are specific
allegations visavis RespondentAccused alleging that she exploited
the deceased and deprived her of any chance to recuperate from the
arduous domestic chores. This was despite the fact that deceased was
also working as a fulltime lecturer in the local government college. It
was further alleged that due to nonfulfilment of the dowry demands,
the vicious cycle of humiliation and abuse continued to be meted out
to the deceased. The deceased contacted the Complainant on
30092017 and informed that she had been again physically tortured
because of her failure to meet their dowry demands. The Complainant
assured that he would try to amicably settle this household squabble
by coming to her marital home on the very next day. However, this
assurance could never be materialised as the accused are alleged to
have clandestinely administered poison to the deceased on
01.10.2017, which led to her unfortunate demise the following
morning. It is to be noted that the factum of poisoning is supported by
medical evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency.
Page | 2
4. Soon after the FIR was lodged, the RespondentAccused moved
an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was
rejected on 21.12.2017. Discontented, the RespondentAccused
approached the High Court for a similar relief, but the petition was
dismissed as withdrawn on 08.03.2018. Meanwhile, on account of
noncooperation with the ongoing investigation, the SHO of the
concerned police station applied for and got issued arrest warrants
against the RespondentAccused from Judicial Magistrate. However,
the arrest warrant could not be executed as the RespondentAccused
had been on the run and she was thus declared an absconder on 23
042018 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for
short, “Cr.P.C.”).
5. The RespondentAccused continued to evade her arrest until this
Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son Daksh Adya
(brotherinlaw of the deceased) on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, taking
advantage of this subsequent event and presenting the same as a
material change in circumstance, RespondentAccused 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.
Page | 3
6. It is noted explicitly that during the pendency of the abovementioned proceedings, the High Court granted interim bail to the
RespondentAccused on 03.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, she joined
the investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter, vide the impugned order,
High Court allowed both the petitions and set aside the order
declaring the RespondentAccused as an absconder and also granted
her anticipatory bail. These reliefs were primarily allowed on two
grounds firstly that the RespondentAccused had joined the
investigation and undertook to remain present at each date of trial
proceedings; secondly she was entitled to seek parity with the coaccused Daksh Adya whom this Court granted anticipatory bail.
7. The aggrieved Complainant is before us, contending interalia,
that the High Court has committed a grave error of law in overlooking
the wellestablished principles which guide courts to exercise their
discretion in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Learned State
Counsel has also supported the cause of AppellantComplainant.
8. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and
perused the relevant material placed on record.
9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the wellsettled
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
Page | 4
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 nonconducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This
Court in Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana1
observed
that:
“Rejection of bail in a nonbailable 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 have been reiterated time and again, more
recently by a 3judge Bench of this Court in X vs. State of Telegana
and Another.
2
1
(1995) 1 SCC 349 at ¶ 4.
2
(2018) 16 SCC 511 at ¶ 1415.
Page | 5
10. In addition to the caveat illustrated in the cited decision(s), 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. This Court has repeatedly viewed that
while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se
extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence
prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the
deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair
investigation, ought not to be overlooked.
11. Broadly speaking, each case has its own unique factual scenario
which holds the key for adjudication of bail matters including
cancellation thereof. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous
and protrudes our medieval social structure which still wails for
reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary.
12. In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have been
primarily swayed by the fact that the RespondentAccused was ‘coPage | 6
operating’ with investigation. This is, however, contrary to the record
as the RespondentAccused 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.
13. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the
RespondentAccused as an absconder, that by itself was not a
justifiable ground to grant prearrest bail in a case of grave offence
save where the High Court on perusal of casediary 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
RespondentAccused.
14. The ground of parity with coaccused Daksh Adya invoked by the
High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against
the RespondentMotherinLaw 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 RespondentAccused of playing a key
role in the alleged offence. The conduct of the RespondentAccused in
Page | 7
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 coaccused with whom she seeks parity. We are, thus, of the considered
view that the High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in
favour of the RespondentAccused. It has to be borne in mind that
the deceased met with a tragic end within three months of her
marriage. While it is too early to term it an offence under Sections 302
or 304B I.P.C., but 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 RespondentAccused is the motherinlaw of the deceased. The
Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the
role of the RespondentAccused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely
death of her daughter inlaw.
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the RespondentAccused may be
right in contending that the AppellantComplainant has widened the
net and included even other than the family members of the inlaws of
the deceased. According to him, the entire version of the AppellantComplainant should be seen with suspicious eyes as he being a retired
District Attorney, has a legally trained mind. We do not deem it
necessary to comment upon this contention at this stage. Suffice to
Page | 8
mention that the needle of suspicion revolves around only against the
RespondentAccused and her family members while at this stage the
others have been found innocent by the investigating agency.
16. In light of the above discussion and without expressing any
views on merit, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court
dated 28.01.2021 and direct the RespondentAccused to surrender
before the Trial Court within a period of one week. We make it clear
that the observations made herein above are limited for the purposes
of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on
the merits of the case. We also clarify that after the surrender, the
RespondentAccused will be free to seek regular bail before the
concerned Trial Court and any such prayer shall be decided as per
law, without being influenced by this order.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
..…………………….. CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
………..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
………..………………… J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 04.10.2021
Page | 9
