Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"

Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling in Dharampal & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, denied pre-arrest bail to the petitioners implicated in a dowry harassment and abetment to suicide case. The Court underscored the gravity of the charges under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 of the IPC and stressed the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the truth.

FIR No. 30 of 2024 was registered at Police Station Arki, Solan, against Dharampal and his family members, alleging that they harassed the deceased, Pooja Devi, who was married to Dharampal in 2018. The deceased had allegedly suffered both physical and mental harassment due to dowry demands, which ultimately led her to commit suicide by setting herself on fire. Despite efforts by the deceased's husband to finance her treatment after the incident, she succumbed to her injuries on August 10, 2024.

The petitioners filed for pre-arrest bail, claiming innocence and stating that Pooja had been suffering from psychiatric disorders, which led to her unfortunate demise. They contended that she was in her parental home when she sustained the burn injuries. The prosecution, however, opposed the petitions, highlighting the severity of the allegations, including the statement made by the deceased under Section 164 of the CrPC, accusing her husband and his relatives of harassment. The prosecution further argued that the petitioners' custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the facts surrounding Pooja's death.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla referred to multiple precedents, including P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, to establish that the power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The court noted:

"Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases."

Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights with public interest and the need for a fair investigation, as discussed in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana. It observed:

"While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation."

In light of the allegations, the statement made by the deceased under Section 164, and the corroboration by witnesses, the court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses charged. The court ruled that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the circumstances that led to the deceased's suicide. Consequently, the petitions for pre-arrest bail were dismissed, with the court emphasizing that such relief is not a matter of right but an exception granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Dharampal & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh