Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
Savitri Agarwal & Others
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1178 of 2009, 1179 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 5563-5564 of 2008)
Decided on : 10-07-2009
(1980) 2 SCC 565 – Relied upon
(2001) 6 SCC 338; AIR 1978 P&H 1 : 1978 Crl LJ 20 (FB); (1976) 4 SCC 572 – Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Sessions court granting bail after duly considering all factors and circumstances – No interference warranted – Merely because High Court was having different view of the matter, it did not mean that order of the sessions court was perverse – High Court, further, failing to distinguish between rejection of bail application and cancellation of bail already granted. (Para 20, 21)
(1995) 1 SCC 349 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellants herein are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and the younger brother of the father-in-law of the deceased-Laxmi. They are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The deceased-Laxmi was married to appellant No.3 on 26th January, 2006. On 13th October, 2006, they were blessed with a baby boy. On 6th December, 2007 at about 4.30 p.m., appellant No.2 (father-in-law) heard cries of Laxmi and rushing to the second floor of the house, he saw her burning. Her son was lying in the bathroom who also had burns. Laxmi and her child were removed to the hospital. At about 10.55 p.m., the minor child expired. Her statement was recorded two times.
On the complaint of Laxmi’s father an FIR was regaistered against the appellants for offences under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
On 6th December, 2007 the appellants applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge who initially granted interim protection to them from arrest till the next date of hearing i.e. 17th December, 2007.
On 16th December, 2007, Laxmi expired and offence under Section 304-B IPC was added against the appellants. On 18th December, 2007 the Sessions Judge confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.
The High Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The order of Sessions court granting anticipatory bail did not warrant interference by High Court.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
D.K. Jain, J.
Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these two appeals is to the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Applications No.250 and 2081 of 2008, whereby the said two applications filed by the State and the complainant respectively, have been allowed and the protection granted to the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Amravati vide order dated 18th December, 2007 in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Code) has been withdrawn. The appellants herein are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and the younger brother of the father-in-law of the deceased-Laxmi. They are accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `the IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Material facts, leading to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:
The deceased-Laxmi got married to appellant No.3 on 26th January, 2006. On 13th October, 2006, they were blessed with a baby boy. On 6th December, 2007 at about 4.30 p.m., appellant No.2 (father-in-law) is stated to have heard the cries of Laxmi and when he rushed to the second floor of the house, he saw her burning. He tried to douse the fire. Laxmi told him that her son was lying in the bathroom. He rushed to the bathroom and found that the child also had burns. Laxmi and her child were removed to the hospital. At about 6.40 p.m., her statement was recorded by the Executive Magistrate wherein she stated that she and her son caught fire when she was pouring kerosene oil in the lamp which accidentally fell down; the oil got spilled over and both of them got burnt. At about 10.55 p.m., the minor child expired. On receiving the intimation, parents of Laxmi reached the hospital at about 11.30 p.m. the same night. On 7th December, 2007, at about 1.40 p.m. another statement of Laxmi was recorded by the Executive Magistrate wherein again she reiterated that she had got burnt accidentally.
4. On 8th December, 2007, father of Laxmi lodged a complaint with Police Station City Kotwali, Amravati against the appellants, inter alia, alleging that after the marriage of his daughter on 26th January, 2006, the appellants were torturing her for not meeting dowry demand of Rs.2 lakhs and earlier on 15th July, 2006, due to torture she had left the matrimonial home, intending to commit suicide but due to intervention of the relatives, she returned back to Amravati. On the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against the appellants for offences under Section 498A read with Section 34, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. On 6th December, 2007 the appellants applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Amravati, who, vide order dated 10th December, 2007, initially granted interim protection to them from arrest till the next date of hearing i.e. 17th December, 2007. On 16th December, 2007, Laxmi expired and offence under Section 304-B IPC came to be added against the appellants. On 18th December, 2007, after hearing both sides and upon taking into consideration the said two dying declarations made by the deceased - Laxmi, statements of the complainant and witnesses and after perusing the case diary, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants.
6. Aggrieved, the State of Maharashtra and the complainant filed petitions before the High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellants. As noted earlier, by the impugned order, the High Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, on the ground that the Sessions Judge had failed to apply his mind to certain vital circumstances viz. -absence of mention of lantern and match stick in the panchnama; necessity of lantern and its lighting at 4 p.m. in the afternoon when the house was equipped wit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.