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

04.10.2021 

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  Respondent­Accused approached the High Court – bail was dismissed as withdrawn – Meanwhile – on account of non­cooperation – the SHO of the concerned police station applied for and got issued arrest warrants against the Respondent­Accused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. 

Vipan Kumar                                    

VERSUS  

State of Punjab and another

VIEW JUDGMENT