9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 701 - SC - Indian LawsDowry demands - Victim committed suicide - Seeking grant of anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Offence u/s 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961('Act') - HELD THAT - In the very nature of the direction which the Court can issue under Section 438 of the Code, it is clear that the direction is to be issued only at the pre-arrest stage. The direction becomes operative only after arrest. The condition precedent for the operation of the direction issued is arrest of the accused. This being so, the irresistible inference is that while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code the Court cannot restrain arrest. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his dis-appearance to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. In view of what has been stated in some of the directions, given by learned Single Judge, as quoted, are not in line with what has been stated in Adri Dharan Das's case 2005 (2) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT . Accordingly we modify the directions. Since the respondents have already surrendered and have been granted bail in terms of the High Court's directions, they shall surrender before the concerned court and shall move for bail in terms of Section 439 of the Code within four weeks from today. On that being done the case shall be considered in its proper perspective uninfluenced by the fact we have disapproved stipulation of conditions by the High Court. The concerned court shall deal with the matter appropriately. It is brought to our notice that the husband of the deceased has already been released on bail after his surrender. The effect and/or relevance of that order shall be duly considered by the concerned court while dealing with the application for bail to be filed within stipulated time. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Compliance with the parameters for granting anticipatory bail. 3. Distinction between anticipatory bail under Section 438 and regular bail under Section 439. 4. Legality of the conditions imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Anticipatory Bail Granted Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Supreme Court examined the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, which granted anticipatory bail to the respondents under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondents were apprehending arrest in connection with a case under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, following allegations that the victim committed suicide due to dowry demands. 2. Compliance with the Parameters for Granting Anticipatory Bail: The appellant contended that the High Court did not adhere to the established parameters while granting anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is a facility provided under Section 438 of the Code, commonly referred to as 'anticipatory bail', which allows for bail in anticipation of arrest. The Court highlighted that any order of bail can only be effective from the time of arrest of the accused, and the power under Section 438 is extraordinary, meant for exceptional cases where false implication is likely or misuse of liberty is not anticipated. 3. Distinction Between Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 and Regular Bail Under Section 439: The Court emphasized the distinction between anticipatory bail under Section 438 and regular bail under Section 439. Section 439 allows for bail to be granted to a person already in custody, while Section 438 deals with directions for granting bail to a person apprehending arrest. The Court cited previous judgments, including *Gur Baksh Singh v. State of Punjab* and *Balachand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, to explain that anticipatory bail is granted at the pre-arrest stage and becomes operative only upon arrest. 4. Legality of the Conditions Imposed by the High Court While Granting Anticipatory Bail: The Supreme Court scrutinized the conditions imposed by the High Court, such as the execution of bonds, daily appearance before the police, and the return of the victim's belongings. The Court found that some of these directions were not in line with established legal principles, particularly the notion that anticipatory bail should not bypass the regular court's jurisdiction. The Court referred to *Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra* and *K.L. Verma v. State* to assert that anticipatory bail orders should be of limited duration and should not interfere with the investigation process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court modified the directions of the High Court, stating that the respondents, having already surrendered and been granted bail, should surrender again before the concerned court and apply for bail under Section 439 within four weeks. The concerned court was instructed to consider the bail application uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's disapproval of the High Court's conditions. The Court also noted that the husband of the deceased, already released on bail, should be considered by the concerned court while dealing with the new bail application. Judgment: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the directions of the High Court were modified, and the respondents were instructed to follow the proper legal procedure for bail under Section 439 of the Code.
|
