9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Allegations of dowry harassment and dowry death u/s 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail and its subsequent cancellation. Summary: Issue 1: Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants, accused of offences under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, were initially granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Amravati. The High Court later cancelled this bail, citing the Sessions Judge's failure to consider certain vital circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court erred in reversing the Sessions Judge's order, noting that the judicial discretion exercised in granting anticipatory bail was neither perverse nor erroneous. The Supreme Court emphasized that the factors considered by the Sessions Judge were relevant and supported by reasons, and the High Court's different view on the same material did not justify labeling the order as perverse. Issue 2: Allegations of dowry harassment and dowry death u/s 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.The case involved the death of Laxmi, who allegedly caught fire while pouring kerosene oil in a lamp. Two dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate stated that the burns were accidental. However, Laxmi's father lodged a complaint alleging dowry harassment and torture by the appellants. The High Court noted the serious nature of the offences and the circumstances pointing to the appellants' involvement, which warranted custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court, however, found that the anticipatory bail was granted after due consideration of the facts, including the dying declarations and statements of witnesses, and there was no evidence of the appellants misusing the bail or not cooperating with the investigation. Issue 3: Judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail and its subsequent cancellation.The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should be granted with due care and circumspection, but not limited to exceptional cases only. The Court highlighted that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should be exercised by higher courts with judicial discretion. The Court also noted that the rejection of bail at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted should be considered on different bases, requiring very cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation. In this case, the Supreme Court found no such circumstances justifying the High Court's order to cancel the anticipatory bail. Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order canceling the anticipatory bail, and restored the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellants. The Court clarified that nothing said in the judgment should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
|
