IMPORTANT POINTSThe High Court while granting bail must apply its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1 December 2020 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17334 of 2020.

3. A First Information Report, FIR No. 0076 of 2019, was registered on 9 February 2019 at Police Station Friends Colony, District Etawah for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1861. The First Information Report was registered on the complaint of the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased. The marriage between the deceased and the first respondent was solemnized on 5 July 2018. It has been alleged in the FIR that at the time of the marriage, a cash amount of Rs. 15 lakhs, a motor vehicle and other household articles were provided in dowry. It has been alleged that the first respondent and his parents were not satisfied with the amount of dowry and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was being demanded. On 8 February 2019, it has been alleged that at about 8.45 p.m. a phone call was received from a cell phone from the first respondent when the appellant was informed that if he wished to see his sister alive, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs should be arranged. It has been alleged that the phone was then disconnected. However, at 1.30 a.m. on 9 February 2019, the appellant is alleged to have received a phone call requiring him to take away the dead body of his sister. The FIR records that the appellant together with the members of the family went to Etawah and found that the matrimonial home of the appellant’s sister was locked. They came to know that her dead body had been kept at the district hospital. On these allegations, the First Information Report came to be registered at 11.49 a.m. on 9 February 2019.

4. A charge-sheet has been submitted on 3 May 2019 for offences alleged under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bail application filed by the first respondent was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 18 June 2019. The High Court was thereafter moved in a bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. After recording the rival submissions, the High Court allowed the application, observing thus:

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.”

5. We have heard Mr. Vishal Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Ravinder Singh, learned senior counsel for the first respondent and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh have appeared in pursuance of the notice issued by this Court on 27 January 2021.

6. Mr. Vishal Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that (i) the High Court has adduced absolutely no reasons for the grant of bail; (ii) the submission before the High Court that the deceased was suffering from a mental illness is patently false and the so called medical prescription dated 1 January 2019 was issued by an Ayurvedic doctor about a month before the date of the incident on 1 January 2019; (iii) ex facie, the medical prescription would indicate that the deceased was not undergoing treatment for a mental condition; (iv) the death has taken place within a year of the marriage and (v) having regard to the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the presumptions which arise under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act, there was no justification for the High Court to grant bail at the present stage.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has supported the view o