“Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Individual Liberty: Grants Pre-arrest Bail in Dowry Case”
In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of individual liberty in the judicial process, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, under the bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, granted pre-arrest bail to Reeta Jha, a school principal embroiled in a dowry-related complaint. This decision, delivered on February 26, 2024, highlights the court’s discretion in granting pre-arrest bail, even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Reeta Jha, the petitioner, had approached the court seeking pre-arrest/transit bail in complaint case No. 1038(C) of 2023, involving offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 328 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961. She alleged false implication by her daughter-in-law.
In his judgment, Justice Rakesh Kainthla stated, “The jurisdiction of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail will be available. Hence, the present application is allowed and order dated 29.12.2023 is made absolute.” This observation came after considering the addition of Section 328 IPC, a graver offence, to the petitioner’s charges.
The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1484), asserting that High Courts have the jurisdiction to grant interim protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in FIRs registered outside their territorial jurisdiction. Justice Kainthla emphasized the constitutional imperative of protecting a citizen’s right to life, personal liberty, and dignity.
The decision delved into various precedents and judgments from different High Courts, underlining the principle that pre-arrest bail can be granted even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants, subject to the specific circumstances of each case. The court maintained that this discretion is pivotal in safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring justice is served.
Justice Kainthla’s ruling reiterated the importance of judicial discretion and the need to balance individual rights with the demands of justice, stating, “The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.”
This judgment is seen as a significant affirmation of the High Court’s role in protecting individual liberties in the face of legal challenges and complexities.
Date of Decision : 26-02-2024
REETA JHA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER
