New Delhi, Oct 4 (PTI) The Supreme Court Monday said that gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused, and societal impact of an undue indulgence by the court are the factors to be kept in mind while interfering with a bail granted to an accused.
The apex court said that it is necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for the cancellation of bail.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana made the observations while cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to a woman and directing her to surrender in a dowry death case.
The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of criminal justice system.
This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked, the bench said.
The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hina Kohli said that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail.
Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances that may develop post the grant of bail and are non conducive to a fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail, it said.
The apex court said in addition, bail can also be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable.
It said that each case has its unique factual scenario which holds the key for adjudication of bail matters including cancellation.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by Vipan Kumar Dhir challenging the anticipatory bail granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the mother-in-law his daughter in a dowry death case.
The apex court said that offence alleged in the instant case is “heinous and protrudes our medieval social structure” which still wails for reforms despite multiple efforts made by Legislation and Judiciary.
In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by the fact that the accused was ‘co operating’ with the investigation.
This is, however, contrary to the record as the accused remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender on April 23, 2018. She chose to join the investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as Magistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court, the bench said.
The top court said that even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre -arrest bail in a case of a grave offence.
The allegations in the FIR against the mother-in-law and her younger son are materially different, the court said.
It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are other specific allegations accusing the mother-in-law of playing a key role in the alleged offence.
The conduct of the accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary relief. These facts put her on a starkly different pedestal than the co accused with whom she seeks parity, the bench said.
It said the High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in favour of the accused and it has to be borne in mind that the deceased met with a tragic end within three months of her marriage.
While it is too early to term it an offence under Sections 302 (murder) or 304B of Indian Penal Code but the fact remains that a young life came to an abrupt end before realising any of her dreams which were grimly shattered. She died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home.
The accused is the mother -in -law of the deceased. The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the Respondent -Accused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter-in-law- law, the bench said.