2012 (8) TMI 1190 - SC - Indian Laws

Dowry Death - Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 - deceased had allegedly committed suicide after one year and eight months of marriage and further she was pregnant at the time when she had taken her life - whether the Appellant, who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased, has made out a case for anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? - HELD THAT - It is seen that the deceased had allegedly committed suicide after one year and eight months of marriage and further she was pregnant at the time when she had taken her life. On the basis of the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, an FIR was registered and during the course of the investigation, the police recorded the supplementary statements of Hira Lal, father of the deceased, the neighbour of the deceased near the matrimonial home as well as the complainant -mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, it has been clearly made out, particularly, insofar as the Appellant is concerned, that there was a definite allegation against him. Further, the Appellant and other family members subjected the deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry, right from the date of marriage and also immediately before the date of her death. By placing the relevant materials and two status reports submitted by the police, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG submitted that the Appellant was a Proclaimed Offender. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail. In the light of the conditions prescribed in Section 438 of the Code and conduct of the Appellant immediately after the incident as well as after the interim protection granted by this Court, we are of the view that the Appellant has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. Unless free hand is given to the investigating agency, particularly, in the light of the allegations made against the Appellant and his family members, the truth will not surface. Therefore, we are unable to accept the claim of the Appellant. We make it clear that while upholding the rejection of the anticipatory bail, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We also clarify that after surrender, the Appellant is free to move bail application before the Court concerned which may be disposed of in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012 stands vacated. The Appellant is directed to surrender within a period of one week from today.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application by the High Court in a case involving the suicide of a woman. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the elder brother of the deceased's husband, the Appellant, was eligible for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 438, emphasizing that a person may apply for anticipatory bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offense. The Court must consider factors such as the nature of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of fleeing from justice. The seriousness of the matter should not be disregarded when granting anticipatory bail.

The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that the Appellant and other family members had subjected the deceased to cruelty for dowry demands, leading to her suicide. The police reports indicated that the Appellant was declared a proclaimed offender and was not cooperating with the investigation, absconding from authorities. In such cases, where the accused is evading arrest and declared a proclaimed offender, anticipatory bail is not granted.

The Court noted that the Appellant's conduct, including failure to cooperate with the investigation despite interim protection granted, did not warrant anticipatory bail. The Court concluded that the Appellant had not established a case for anticipatory bail based on his behavior and the serious allegations against him and his family members. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was directed to surrender within a week.

The judgment underscores the importance of allowing the investigating agency to proceed unhindered in cases involving serious allegations. It clarifies that the rejection of anticipatory bail does not imply a judgment on the case's merits and that the Appellant may seek regular bail after surrendering.