Back
A.S.ANAND, M.K.MUKHERJEE
Dolat Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8-11-1993, relating to the alleged dowry death of Smt Sunita - wife of Anil Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of the husband of the deceased Smt Sunita and directed that they be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 10,000 each with one surety each of the like amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been granted to the husband - Anil Kumar The State of Haryana filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on 12-11-1993. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 8-9-1994, cancelled the bail observing:
"Dowry death is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No positive finding has been recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge in his order to the effect that the respondents and the deceased were living separately. No prima facie case is made out which could justify the grant of anticipatory bail. To my vi
**Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349** (primary case, referenced in nearly all snippets):
Extensively cited, relied upon, quoted with approval, and followed across the entire list (e.g., State of Kerala VS Sajeev Mathew - Crimes (1995), Vinod Tiwari VS State of M. P. - 1995 0 Supreme(MP) 883, Sandeep Goyal VS State Of Punjab - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 809, Onkar Gulati VS State of another - Crimes (1998), Malkhan Singh VS State Of Haryana - 1998 0 Supreme(P&H) 160, Sukhpal Kaur VS State of Punjab - 1998 0 Supreme(P&H) 635, etc.).
Phrases indicating positive treatment: "relied upon" (e.g., Sandeep Goyal VS State Of Punjab - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 809, Puran etc. etc. VS Rambilasetc. etc. - 2001 3 Supreme 685), "quoted with approval" (e.g., Satya Prakash VS Anand Sarup Sharma - Crimes (1999), SATYA PRAKASH VS ANAND SARUP SHARMA - 1999 0 Supreme(HP) 11), "following the principles stated in" (e.g., Mahant Chand Nath Yogi VS State of Haryana - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1122, Mahant Chand Nath Yogi VS State of Haryana - 2002 7 Supreme 381), "reiterated" (e.g., Subhendu Mishra VS Subrat Kumar Mishra - 1999 0 Supreme(SC) 231, Rajeshwari VS State of Rajasthan - 2003 0 Supreme(Raj) 1126), "laid down that" (e.g., RAJ PAL SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 859, Ramcharan VS State of M. P. - 2003 0 Supreme(Ori) 218), "held as under" with direct quotes from para 4 (ubiquitous, e.g., Sham Lal VS State of Punjab - 1998 0 Supreme(P&H) 756, S. M. MUDDASSIR VS STATE OF DELHI - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 525).
Used to distinguish rejection vs. cancellation of bail; no negative treatment.
**State of Gujarat v. Aslam Babalal Desai (1984) 1 SCC 264** (or variations like State of Gujarat [(1984) 1 SCC 264]):
Cited alongside Dolat Ram positively (e.g., State of Kerala VS Sajeev Mathew - Crimes (1995): listed with other cases; State of West Bengal VS Noor Ahmed - 2002 0 Supreme(Cal) 106, State of West Bengal VS Noor Ahmed - 2002 0 Supreme(Cal) 113: referred to in contentions; SUDAM SAHU VS STATE OF ORISSA - 2002 0 Supreme(Ori) 700, Say Gaud Kondagaud Bhurewar and another VS State of Maharashtra and others - 2000 0 Supreme(Bom) 299).
Treatment: Relied upon for bail principles; no criticism.
**Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 969**:
Quoted with approval (e.g., Satya Prakash VS Anand Sarup Sharma - Crimes (1999), SATYA PRAKASH VS ANAND SARUP SHARMA - 1999 0 Supreme(HP) 11: "These observations are quoted with approval in Pokar Ram"); cited positively (e.g., State of Maharashtra VS Satyakumar Kamalkishore Nashine - 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 1305: three-judge bench followed).
Treatment: Approved and followed.
**Subrat Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 3026** (or variations like Sudhendu Mishra, Subrat Kumar Mishro):
Follows Dolat Ram principles (e.g., RAJ PAL SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 859: "principles laid down in Dolat Rams case"; Mahant Chand Nath Yogi VS State of Haryana - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1122, Mahant Chand Nath Yogi VS State of Haryana - 2002 7 Supreme 381, Rajeshwari VS State of Rajasthan - 2003 0 Supreme(Raj) 1126, MAHESH GUPTA VS NCT OF DELHI - 2003 0 Supreme(Del) 689: "approved the law laid down", "following the principles", "reiterating the ratio").
Treatment: Reiterates/approves Dolat Ram; positively cited.
**Other supporting cases** (e.g., Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab; State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi; Amar Nath v. State of Haryana; Ram Govind Upadhayay v. Sudarshan Singh; Ram Bilas v. State of Bihar; Puran v. State of Punjab; State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota; etc.):
Cited positively alongside Dolat Ram (e.g., Puran etc. etc. VS Rambilasetc. etc. - 2001 3 Supreme 685, Puran VS Rambilas - 2001 3 Supreme 685, Raj Pal Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Crimes (2002), Dinesh M. N. (S. P. ) VS State of Gujarat - Crimes (2008), Satish Dhond VS State of Goa - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 45).
Treatment: Relied upon for bail/cancellation principles; quoted/approved.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
