Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case Execution of Will Must Satisfy Legal Mandates; Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored: Chhattisgarh High Court Anticipatory Bail Barred Under SC/ST Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petitions Citing Section 14A Jurisdictional Restrictions Section 143A Imposes a Substantive Obligation and Cannot be Applied Retrospectively: Rajasthan High Court Unregistered Sale Agreements Cannot Be Basis for Specific Performance or Injunction: Madras High Court Upholds First Appellate Court’s Decision” Denial of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: Punjab and Haryana High Court Framing of Charges Requires Prima Facie Evidence, Not Mere Suspicion: Kerala High Court Discharges Bank Customer in Fraud Case Voluntary Confessions of Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Accused Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance Under MMDR Act Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Illegal Mining Case NDPS | Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Delhi High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Functional Disability Reassessed Public Interest and Commercial Morality Must Guide Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings Under Section 466 of the Companies Act: Bombay High Court Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Renders Proclamation Proceedings Null and Void: P&H High Court Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports Doctors Cannot Be Expected to Investigate Victim's Age in the Absence of Prima Facie Doubt: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Bombay HC Grants Bail to Drunk Driving Accused; Orders Public Awareness Campaign as a Condition Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits Lies Squarely on the Plaintiffs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Church Property Dispute Rajasthan High Court Puts Mass Transfer Orders of Panchayat Officials on Hold Physical Disabilities Cannot Be Ignored Based on Employment Continuity: Kerala High Court Awards ₹9.62 Lakh to Teacher Suffering Permanent Disability Local Commissioner Appointment is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Power of the Court: P&H HC Allegations of Fraud Insufficient to Bar Arbitration in Trademark Dispute: Madras High Court Section 138 N.I. Act | Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Karnataka High Court

Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The father of the deceased has lodged an FIR against 7 accused persons, 4 of whom are members of his daughter's in-laws' family. The Complainant has alleged that his daughter was married to the son of Respondent accused on 28­07­2017. Soon thereafter, the accused family members started to harass and physically torture the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands. It was further alleged that due to nonfulfillment of their demands, the vicious cycle of humiliation and abuse continued to be meted out to the deceased. On September ­2017, the complainant contacted the respondent to inform them that she had been again physically tortured because of her failure to meet their demands. The Respondent assured that he would try to amicably settle this household squabble by coming to her marital home on the very next day but poisoned her instead 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. Soon after the FIR the Respondent­Accused moved an anticipatory bail - Sessions Court - rejected on 21.12.2017.  Respondent­Accused approached the High Court - bail was dismissed as withdrawn - Meanwhile - on account of non­cooperation - the SHO of the concerned police station applied for and got issued arrest warrants against the Respondent­Accused -  arrest warrant  not  executed - declared an absconder. After that, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son (brother-in-law of the deceased). Thereafter, Respondent-accused filed two petitions before the High Court seeking quashing of the order that declared her a 'proclaimed offender' and seeking relief of bail. The High Court allowed both the petitions and set aside the order declaring the Respondent-accused as an absconder and granting her precarious bail. The aggrieved complainant approached the Apex Court and contended that the High Court court had committed a grave error of law in overlooking the well­established principles which guide courts in exercising their discretion in the matter of granting bail. Apex Court observed that cancellation of bail is to be dealt with on a different footing in comparison to the proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that 'cogent and overwhelming reasons' are present for cancelling bail. 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 evade the justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner.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 are amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice.The High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in favour of the Respondent­-in-law of the deceased, who died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The ground of parity with co­accused Daksh Adya invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted. 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 were grimly shattered. Appeal Allowed – Bail Cancelled. 

 

D.D-04.10.2021 

Vipan Kumar   VERSUS  State of Punjab and another

Similar News