IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail – It is necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for cancellation of bail.
(2) Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre-arrest bail in a case of grave offence.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Cancellation of bail – Cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail – It is necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for cancellation of bail – Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel bail – Bail can also be revoked where court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders order granting bail legally untenable – Gravity of offence, conduct of accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when investigation is at threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent miscarriage of justice and to bolster administration of criminal justice system – While granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, possibility of accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening family members of deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. (Paras 5, 9 and 10)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 304B and 302 read with Section 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Dowry death – Respondent-Accused(mother-in-law of deceased) continued to evade her arrest until this Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son (brother-in-law of deceased) – Each case has its own unique factual scenario which holds key for adjudication of bail matters including cancellation thereof – Offence alleged in instant case is heinous and protrudes our medieval social structure which still wails for reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary – Respondent-Accused remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender – She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from High Court – Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring Respondent-Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre-arrest bail in a case of grave offence save where High Court on perusal of case diary and other material on record is, prima facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or over-exaggerated accusation – Such being not the case here, High Court went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent-Accused – Ground of parity with co-accused invoked by High Court is equally unwarranted – Allegations in the FIR against Respondent-Mother-in-Law and her younger son are materially different – Some of allegations against all family members are common but there are other specific allegations accusing Respondent-Accused of playing a key role in alleged offence – High Court has wrongly accorded benefit of parity in favour of Respondent-Accused – Deceased met with a tragic end within three months of her marriage – Needle of suspicion revolves around only against Respondent-Accused and her family members while at this stage others have been found innocent by investigating agency – Impugned order of High Court set aside. (Paras 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Challenge laid is to an order dated 28.01.2021 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby anticipatory bail has been granted to Respondent No.2 (Respondent-Accused), who is mother-in-law of deceased and is charged under Sections 304B, 302 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code.
Findings of Court:
While it is too early to term it an offence under Sections 302 or 304B I.P.C., but the fact remains that a young life came to an abrupt end before realizing any of her dreams which were grimly shattered. She died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. The Respondent-Accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate role of the Respondent-Accused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter-in-law.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge laid is to an order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby anticipatory bail has been granted to Respondent No. 2 (hereafter ‘Respondent-Accused’) who is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is charged under Sections 304B, 302 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

3. The prosecution version in brief is that the appellant (hereafter ‘Complainant’) who is the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR dated 02.10.2017 against 7 accused persons, 4 of whom are members of the in-laws family of the deceased including the Respondent-Accused. The Complainant has alleged that his daughter was married to the son of Respondent-Accused on 28.07.2017. Soon thereafter, the accused family members started to harass and physically torture the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands. His daughter died an unnatural death on 02.10.2017 in suspicious circumstances. There are specific allegations vis-a-vis Respondent-Accused alleging that she exploited the deceased and deprived her of any chance to recuperate from the arduous domestic chores. This was despite the fact that deceased was also working as a fulltime lecturer in the local government college. It was further alleged that due to non-fulfilment of the dowry demands, the vicious cycle of humiliation and abuse continued to be meted out to the deceased. The deceased contacted the Complainant on 30.09.2017 and informed that she had been again physically tortured because of her failure to meet their dowry demands. The Complainant assured that he would try to amicably settle this household squabble by coming to her marital home on the very next day. However, this assurance could never be materialised as the accused are alleged to have clandestinely administered poison to the deceased on 01.10.2017, which led to her unfortunate demise the following morning. It is to be noted that the factum of poisoning is supported by medical evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency.

4. Soon after the FIR was lodged, the Respondent-Accused moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.12.2017. Discontented, the Respondent-Accused approached the High Court for a similar relief, but the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.03.2018. Meanwhile, on account of non-cooperation with the ongoing investigation, the SHO of the concerned police station applied for and got issued arrest warrants against the Respondent-Accused from Judicial Magistrate. However, the arrest warrant could not be executed as the Respondent-Accused had been on the run and she was thus declared an absconder on 23.04.2018 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”).

5. The Respondent-Accused continued to evade her arrest until this Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger Son Daksh Adya (brother-in-law of the deceased) on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, taking advantage of this subsequent event and presenting the same as a material change in circumstance, Respondent-Accused filed two petitions before the High Court, seeking quashing of the order that declared her a ‘proclaimed offender’ and further sought the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. It is noted explicitly that during the pendency of the abovementioned proceedings, the High Court granted interim bail to the Respondent-Accused on 03.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, she joined the investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, High Court allowed both the petitions and set aside the order declaring the Respondent-Accused as an absconder and also granted her anticipatory bail. These reliefs were primarily allowed on two grounds firstly that the Respondent-Accused had joined the investigation and undertook to remain present at each date of trial proceedings; secondly she was entitled to seek parity with the co-accused Daksh Adya whom this Court granted anticipatory bail.

7. The aggrieved Complainant is b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document