Back
2002 Supreme(Chh) 59
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
P. C. NAIK
MANOJ AGRAWAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Respondents
M. CRI. C. 662 Of 2002
Decided On : AUGUST 7, 2002
Hamida Siddique, KISHORE BHADURI, N.K.SHUKLA, RAJIV SHRIVASTAVA, RUP NAIK, S.C.DUTTA, S.SINGHVI, SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, V.C.OTALVAR
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised judiciously and sparingly, especially in cases of serious offences like murder and dowry death, and strong prima facie evidence is required to grant anticipatory bail in such cases.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 304-B of IPC - Section 437, 438, 439, Cr. P. C. - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions contained in Sections 437, 438, and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which relate to the grant of bail. The court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised judiciously and sparingly, especially in cases of serious offences like murder and dowry death. The court referred to various judicial decisions to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and highlighted the need for strong prima facie evidence to grant anticipatory bail in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved four applicants seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC. The deceased was allegedly subjected to cruel treatment for want of dowry, resulting in her death. The applicants were opposed by the State and the deceased's father, who claimed that the death was a case of murder and that the applicants were capable of influencing the investigating agency.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised judiciously and sparingly, and that strong prima facie evidence is required, especially in cases of serious offences like murder and dowry death. The court considered the contradictory statements of the deceased's family members and the lack of positive evidence regarding dowry demands and ill-treatment. Based on these considerations, the court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants with specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC, considering the seriousness of the offence and the contradictory statements of the deceased's family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 437, 438, and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the need for strong prima facie evidence to grant anticipatory bail in cases of serious offences. The court also considered the contradictory statements of the deceased's family members and the lack of positive evidence regarding dowry demands and ill-treatment.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants with specific conditions, taking into account the contradictory statements of the deceased's family members and the lack of positive evidence regarding dowry demands and ill-treatment.
( 1 ) SINCE all the four applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relate to Crime No. 70/2001, Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this connection order.
( 2 ) THE applicant in M. Cr. C. No. 662/2002 Manish Agrawal is the husband, the applicant in M. Cr. C. No. 148/2002 Laxmi Narayana Agrawal is the father-in-law, the applicant in M. Cr. C. No. 189/2002 Smt. Vimla Devi Agrawal is the mother-in-law and the applicant in M. Cr. C. No. 146/2002 Manoj Agrawal is the "devar" of deceased Puja.
( 3 ) APPREHENDING their arrest in connection with Crime No. 705/2001 registered by Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I. P. C. , the applicant-Manoj Agrawal (in M. Cr. C. No. 146/2002) along with his sister Dr. Sarita Agrawal had moved an application (bail petition No. 3146/2001) under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. before the lower Court which, on 2-1-2002, has allowed the application with respect to Dr. Sarita Agrawal. The prayer of applicant-Manoj Agrawal was rejected. Likewise, the applications of applicant-Laxmi Narayan Agrawal in M. Cr. C. No. 148/2002 (Bail Petition No. 3147/2001), that of applicant-Manish Agrawal in M. Cr. C. No. 146/2002 (Bail Petition No. 3149/2001) and that of applicant-Smt. Vimla Devi Agrawal in M. Cr. C. No. 189/2002 (B. P. No. 3148/2001) were rejected by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur on 2-1-2002. Accordingly, all the four applicants have come up before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
( 4 ) THE bail applications are being opposed by the State. The complainant i. e. the father (Shyam Sunder Agrawal) of the deceased-Puja has also filed an objection. Accrording to the objector, the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment for want of dowry resulting into her death and if the applicants are released they being well off are capable of influencing the investigating agency and that the death of Puja is in fact a case of murder but because of the influence of the accused persons, the investigating agency is trying to convert the case of murder into a case of suicide or dowry death.
( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, the marriage of applicant-Manish Agrawal and deceased-Puja was performed on 24-5-2001. Both husband and wife stayed in the matrimonial home for a few days and thereafter they left for their honeymoon trip to the South on 5-6-2001, from where they returned to Raipur on 17-6-2001. After staying at Raipur for about 3 to 4 days they left for Bhilai and stayed there from 22-6-2001 to 23-6-2001 and on the same day returned to Raipur. On 26-6-2001 Puja died on account of burn injuries.
( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further, the Court would like to deal with the objection raised by the learned State Counsel, Additional Advocate General as also learned counsel appearing for the Objector. It is their submission that in a case where an offence under Section 304-B, of IPC has been registered, anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P. C. cannot be granted. Since the arguments are advanced on this aspect, it becomes necessary to deal with the same at this stage. To begin with, it may be stated that the objection is not that bail in such case ought not to be granted, but the objection is that it cannot be granted and for this reason reference to the provisions contained in Sections 437, 438 and 439, Cr. P. C. becomes necessary since the said three provisions relate to grant of bail.
( 7 ) SECTION 437, Cr. P. C. relates to cases where bail can be taken in the case of non-bailable offence. Needless to say, Section 438, Cr. P. C. relates to anticipatory bail in non-bailable offence and Section 439, Cr. P. C. deals with special powers of High Court or the Court of Session regarding bail. Section 437, Cr. P. C. itself provides that the powers shall not be exercised in respect of a person if there appear some reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence p
