High Court of Madhya Pradesh
G.S.Ahluwalia, J.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – APPELLANT
Versus
BHURI BAI – RESPONDENT
M. Cr. C. No. 46653 of 2021
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Criminal Procedure Code - Bail Cancellation - Sections 439(2), 498-A, 304-B, 34 of Indian Penal Code, section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was absconding and could be arrested only on 16-7-2021. The deceased died within four years of her marriage, leading to the registration of a case under sections 498-A, 304-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband of the deceased and the husband of the respondent were arrested. The husband of the respondent was arrested on 22-9-2020. The respondent's second bail application was registered as his first bail application was rejected due to the respondent's abscondance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court did not consider the fact of the respondent's abscondance and did not apply its mind to the allegations against the respondent. The Court issued a show cause notice as to why the bail granted to the respondent may not be cancelled.
Issues: The issues revolved around the respondent's abscondance, the allegations of harassment against the deceased, and the non-application of mind by the trial Court in granting bail to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of the allegations, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused interfering with witnesses or polluting the process of justice. The Court also highlighted the importance of reasons for granting bail and the duty to accord reasons for a decision.
Final Decision: The bail granted to the respondent was cancelled, and the respondent was directed to surrender before the trial Court.
ORDER : – This application has been registered under section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code in exercise of suo motu power by this Court by order dated 7-9-2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021 and a show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the bail granted by the trial Court be not cancelled.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that the respondent was absconding and could be arrested only on 16-7-2021. It is also not out of place to mention here that the deceased died within a period of four years from the date of her marriage and, accordingly, Crime No. 96/2020 was registered at Police Station Devgarh District Morena for offence under sections 498-A, 304-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband of the deceased as well as the husband of the respondent were arrested. Their bail applications were rejected. The husband of the respondent namely Charan Singh was arrested on 22-9-2020.
3. The husband of the deceased namely Pankaj Singh Sikarwar moved his second application under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021 as his first bail application was rejected mainly on the ground that his mother (respondent) is still absconding. It was submitted by the counsel for Pankaj Singh Sikarwar that now her mother has surrendered on 16-7-2021 and she has been granted bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 5-8-2021 and, accordingly, the order dated 5-8-2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura District Morena in B.A. No. 357/2021 was also placed on record.
4. Considering the fact that the trial Court did not consider the fact of abscondance of the respondent and, accordingly, record of B.A. No. 357/2021 was called and after going through the said record, this Court found that in the bail application, it was mentioned that co-accused Gudiya @ Reema Sikarwar has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 2-11-2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 41347/2021 and similarly, Subedar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura District Morena by order dated 8-11-2020 passed in B.A. No. 972/2020 and the co-accused Charan Singh has also been granted bail. It was also mentioned in the bail application that the supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed against the respondent on 2-8-2021. It was further submitted that the respondent is an old lady and medically sick and in case, if she is not released on bail, then it may be detrimental to her life and her family may come on the verge of starvation.
5. While deciding M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021, this Court came to a conclusion that it is clear from the application filed by the respondent that she has not given any explanation as to why she was absconding specifically when her husband and her family members were already facing trial. The deceased died on 11-9-2020 and the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed on 13-12-2020 and it was specifically mentioned that the respondent is absconding. While deciding M.Cr.C. No. 41406/2021, this Court came to a conclusion that the Court below has not applied its mind to the allegations levelled against the respondent and, accordingly, the show cause notice was issued as to why the bail granted to the respondent may not be cancelled.
6. The allegations against the respondent are that the deceased was married to the son of the applicant about four years back and the respondent and her father-in-law as well as other in-laws were harassing the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demand of motorcycle and an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent was arrested on 16-7-2021, i.e., approximately 10 months after the death of the deceased and seven months after the charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused persons. She surrendered only after her husband was granted bail.
7. It
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, the importance of reasons for granting bail, and the duty to accord reasons ....
The considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are distinct. Factors to be considered for anticipatory bail include the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applica....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Amit Lahoti For the Respondent : D. R. Sharma, V. D. Sharma, A. K. Nirankari
The main legal point established is that the discretion to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, considering the seriousness of the offence and the need for proper reasoning in bail orders.
The severity of the accusations, legal provisions, and judgments referenced influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
(1) While considering an application for grant of bail a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to vital facts of case brought on record – Due ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, following well-established principles, and not in a mechanical or cryptic manner.
Bail should not be granted arbitrarily; courts must apply established legal principles and consider the seriousness of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the accused.
While considering an application for bail, all the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvem....
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.