Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ
Bhuri Bai - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1972 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9508/2022]
Decided on : 11-11-2022.
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel bail already granted – Ordinarily, unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. – Power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection – Such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on part of accused before granting bail – Powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against accused – In a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is envisaged only in such cases where liberty of accused is going to be counteracting requirements of a proper trial of criminal case. (Paras 19 and 20)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Bail – Cancellation of – Accusations have been that deceased, who was married to son of appellant, was being subjected to physical and mental tortures for demand of dowry after the marriage and ultimately, she died by hanging under unusual circumstances – Suicide note in handwriting of deceased was found, implicating her husband and in-laws, including present appellant–mother-in-law – It had not been case of prosecution that appellant had misused liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of conditions imposed on her – Over-expansion of issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by Trial Court in its order granting bail – In given set of facts and circumstances, if Trial Court was satisfied that appellant was entitled to be given concession of bail while putting her to specific terms and conditions, order so passed had neither been suffering from any fundamental error nor there was any other material factor for which bail granted to appellant was to be annulled – Challenge thrown at relevant time by Covid-19 Pandemic also remains a factor which cannot be ignored altogether – Fact that appellant is a lady in 55 years of age cannot be ignored – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside and order as passed by First Additional Sessions Judge restored. (Paras 16, 17, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2022, as passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in M.Cr.C. No. 46653/2021, that was registered under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , for suo motu powers exercised by the High Court in its order dated 07.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021. By order impugned, High Court has proceeded to cancel bail granted to appellant by First Additional Sessions Judge.
Findings of Court:
Even if High Court had its reservations in the order so passed by the Trial Court granting bail to the appellant, particularly when fact of long absence of the appellant was not adverted to, it was yet required to be taken note of by the High Court that power being exercised was not that of a regular appeal or revision but, it was that of cancellation of bail under Section 439(2), Cr.P.C.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Cancellation of Bail under CrPC Sections 437(5) and 439(2): Normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel bail already granted. Such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. Powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) [1000765430017][1000765430018][1000765430019]
Exercise of Power under Section 439(2) CrPC: Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered with. Power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection. Cancellation is envisaged only where the liberty of the accused counteracts the requirements of a proper trial. [1000765430018][1000765430019]
Facts of the Case: Appellant (mother-in-law) accused in FIR under IPC Sections 304B, 498A r/w 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3/4 for dowry death by suicide of daughter-in-law, including a suicide note implicating in-laws. Appellant surrendered after ~10 months post-incident, post charge-sheet; Trial Court granted regular bail considering bails to co-accused. High Court cancelled bail suo motu for not addressing absconsion. [1000765430003][1000765430004][1000765430005][1000765430006][1000765430007][1000765430008][1000765430009]
Trial Court Bail Order (05.08.2021): Granted to appellant (55-year-old lady) based on pre-arrest bails to co-accused (sister-in-law, brother-in-law) and regular bail to husband; imposed specific conditions. No fundamental error; no misuse of liberty post-grant. [1000765430002][1000765430006][1000765430016]
High Court Order (Impugned, 10.02.2022): Cancelled bail criticizing Trial Court for not addressing appellant's long absconsion (surrender only after husband's bail, post charge-sheet); noted non-compliance with notices, directed DGP affidavit. [1000765430001][1000765430008][1000765430009][1000765430010][1000765430011]
Supreme Court Findings: Even if reservations about Trial Court order (e.g., not adverting to absconsion), High Court exercising cancellation power under Section 439(2), not appeal/revision. No prosecution case of misuse of liberty or violation of conditions post-grant. Absconsion mitigated by family circumstances (minor child care, other family in custody/on run), COVID-19, appellant's age/gender. No over-expansion needed for omitted factor in Trial Court order. [1000765430012][1000765430014][1000765430015][1000765430016][1000765430017][1000765430019]
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside, Trial Court bail restored. No impact on trial merits. [1000765430020][1000765430021][1000765430022]
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2022, as passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in M.Cr.C. No. 46653/2021, that was registered under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), for suo motu powers exercised by the High Court in its order dated 07.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021.
3. By the order impugned, the High Court has proceeded to cancel the bail granted to the appellant by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena, in the order dated 05.08.2021, as passed in Bail Application No. 357/2021.
4. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows:
The appellant is one of the accused persons in the case arising from FIR No. 96/2020 for offences under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accusations have been that the deceased, who was married to the son of the appellant, was being subjected to physical and mental tortures for demand of dowry after the marriage and ultimately, on 11.09.2020, she died by hanging under unusual circumstances; and a suicide note in the handwriting of the deceased was found, implicating her husband and in-laws, including the present appellant–the mother-in-law.
5. The prayer of the appellant for grant of pre-arrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 18.10.2020. However, thereafter, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the sister-in-law of the deceased on 02.11.2020 and then, the Trial Court granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law of the deceased on 18.11.2020. It is also noticed that on behalf of the appellant, twice over attempts were again made to seek pre-arrest bail but the applications moved in that regard, being M.Cr.C. No. 48592/2020 and M.Cr.C. No. 7199/2021, were dismissed as withdrawn, respectively on 11.12.2020 and 16.02.2021. Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed on 13.12.2020. Until that time, the appellant was not apprehended and it was mentioned in the charge-sheet that she was absconding.
6. In relation to this case, husband of the appellant was also arrested, who was granted regular bail on 23.11.2020. However, the appellant surrendered only on 16.07.2021; and a supplementary chargesheet was also filed on 02.08.2021.
7. Thereafter, the regular bail application (No. 357/2021) moved on behalf of the appellant was considered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena and was allowed on 05.08.2021, essentially with reference to the facts pertaining to the grant of pre- arrest bail to two of the co-accused persons and regular bail to the other co-accused–husband of the appellant.
8. When the record stood thus, with grant of bail to the co-accused persons including the appellant, the son of the appellant (husband of the deceased) moved a second application for bail before the High Court, being M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021. The said application was considered by the High Court on 07.09.2021 and one of the submissions made before the High Court had been that the previous bail application of the said accused was rejected on the ground that his mother (the present appellant) was absconding. It was sought to be contended on behalf of the said appellant that his mother had surrendered on 16.07.2021 and was granted bail by the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2021.
9. The High Court proceeded to examine the said order dated 05.08.2021 and took exception against the same, for the reason that the Trial Court had not adverted to a relevant fact that the present appellant was absconding and was arrested only on 16.07.2021. Though, with reference to the nature of accusations, the High Court proceeded to reject the bail plea of the son of the appellant (husband of the deceased) but at the same time, ordered a separate case to be registered while issuing notice to the present appellant to show-cause as to why th
Cancellation of bail – Normally, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances or grounds are required to cancel bail already granted – Such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indis....
In dowry death cases, sufficient scrutiny must be applied by courts when granting bail, particularly considering post-mortem evidence and societal implications.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Amit Lahoti For the Respondent : D. R. Sharma, V. D. Sharma, A. K. Nirankari
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.
Bail – There cannot be any undue discrimination in matter of grant of bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gravity of the crime, character of evidence, and the position of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses are crucial factor....
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
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
