"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Arrest Should Be the Last Option: Andhra Pradesh High Court, Criticizing Indiscriminate Detentions in Dowry Death Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao emphasizes need for cautious use of detention powers, grants anticipatory bail to relatives of accused under strict conditions.

In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to Jallepalli Srinivasa Rao and Jallepalli Vara Lakshmi, relatives of the accused husband in a dowry death case. The judgment, delivered by Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, emphasized the fundamental right to liberty and the presumption of innocence, asserting that arrest should be the last resort and underlined the necessity for careful exercise of detention powers.

The criminal petition, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), sought anticipatory bail for the petitioners, who were implicated in a case involving alleged dowry harassment leading to the suicide of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the deceased’s marriage to A.1 involved substantial dowry, and subsequent harassment led to her tragic death. The petitioners, A.4 and A.5, contended they were not involved in the marital disputes and had no direct connection to the alleged harassment.

Justice Rao stressed the importance of liberty and the presumption of innocence, quoting, “The law presumes an accused to be innocent until his guilt is proven. As a presumably innocent person, he is entitled to all the fundamental rights, including the right of liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The court noted that the petitioners, who were close relatives but not residing with the deceased, were implicated in the case without substantial evidence. “The material on record does not indicate that these petitioners reside with the deceased and A.1,” observed Justice Rao. He highlighted the lack of prima facie evidence linking the petitioners directly to the alleged harassment.

The court examined the petitioners’ roles, noting, “No specific allegations, prima facie, have been presented against the petitioners that would hold them responsible for the deceased’s death.” The judgment criticized the practice of indiscriminate arrests and emphasized the need for a cautious approach, particularly in cases involving personal liberty.

Justice Rao elaborated on the principles governing anticipatory bail, asserting, “Arrest should be the last option, and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative based on the facts and circumstances of that case.” He further stated, “The attitude of arresting first and then proceeding with the rest is despicable. It has become a handy tool for police officers who lack sensitivity or act with oblique motives.”

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners with specific conditions, including their surrender before the Station House Officer within two weeks and regular cooperation with the investigation. Justice Rao clarified that the observations made in the order were preliminary and did not reflect the merits of the case. The judgment reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to upholding personal liberty and the presumption of innocence, setting a precedent for cautious and judicious use of detention powers.

 

Date of Decision: 18th June 2024

Jallepalli Srinivasa Rao and Jallepalli Vara Lakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh  

Similar News