Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail and Orders CBI Probe in Dowry Death Case: Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 984

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J, and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a High Court grant anticipatory bail in a dowry death case where the investigation appears inadequate and there are serious allegations against the accused? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, focusing on the need for a thorough investigation and the circumstances under which anticipatory bail can be cancelled. The court examined the case of a woman’s unnatural death within seven years of marriage, where her family alleged dowry harassment and murder. The bench comprised of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J, and Indira Banerjee, J, with the opinion authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Deepti, a doctor, who was married to Sumit Agarwal on 3 November 2014. Her father, Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla, lodged a complaint on 7 August 2020, alleging that Deepti was harassed for dowry by her husband, Sumit, and his family, including his parents (S.C. Agarwal and Anita Agarwal), brother (Amit Agarwal), and sister (Tulika Agarwal). The FIR stated that Deepti was pressured to bring money, was assaulted, and ultimately died under suspicious circumstances on 6 August 2020. The FIR also mentioned that Deepti had suffered two miscarriages and had adopted a daughter. The father alleged that his daughter was killed for non-fulfillment of dowry demands.

The FIR further detailed that about 18-19 days prior to her death, Deepti was beaten up by her in-laws for dowry and threatened. On 3 August 2020, her father received a phone call from her father-in-law demanding money and threatening consequences. Later that day, Deepti called her parents, informing them about the assault and threats to her life. By the time her father reached Agra, Deepti had already died. The father also alleged that the in-laws had taken all the money earned by Deepti.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court, Agra, initially rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Deepti’s in-laws on 21 August 2020, noting the allegations of dowry harassment, the transfer of money, and the prior assault on Deepti in 2017. However, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail on 29 September 2020. The High Court reasoned that the FIR seemed engineered, the allegations were general, and the in-laws appeared to be of sufficient means. The High Court also noted the absence of external injuries on Deepti’s body. The father of the deceased then appealed to the Supreme Court against the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the grant of anticipatory bail, allowing a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest.
• Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 506, and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 498A IPC: Addresses cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives.
  • Section 304-B IPC: Deals with dowry death, where a woman dies within seven years of marriage due to burns or bodily injuries, or under suspicious circumstances, and there is evidence of dowry harassment.
  • Section 323 IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 506 IPC: Deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.
  • Section 313 IPC: Deals with causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent.
• Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Father of the Deceased):

• The FIR contains specific allegations that Deepti was killed, yet the police did not investigate whether it was a murder.
• The Sessions Judge had noted the transfer of significant amounts of money from Deepti and her family to her in-laws.
• Deepti was assaulted in 2017 by her in-laws, and a complaint was filed, though not pursued to save the marriage.
• The police investigation was flawed, with a delayed visit to the scene of the incident and a missing suicide note from the initial inventory.
• The FIR mentions a phone call from the father-in-law demanding money and calls from Deepti about assault and threats on the day of her death.
• The High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail was flawed and contrary to established legal principles.

Respondents’ Arguments (In-laws of the Deceased):

• Deepti and her husband had been living separately since 2018.
• The post-mortem report indicated suicide by hanging, with no external injuries.
• The money transfers from Deepti to her father-in-law were for investments in a hospital, not dowry.
• The family had made significant investments in a hospital partnership with Deepti and her husband.
• The alleged incident of assault in 2017 was a fabrication.
• A suicide note indicated that Deepti was depressed due to miscarriages.
• The applicants cooperated with the investigation.

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Arguments:

• The High Court did not consider the injuries sustained by Deepti in 2017 and the FIR lodged by her.
• The in-laws demanded dowry on the day of the incident.
• Deepti suffered miscarriages due to ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws.
• The medical report and facts revealed that Deepti was killed.
• The story of suicide due to frustration is fictitious, and the suicide note is fabricated.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a dowry death case.
2. Whether the investigation conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Police was adequate and unbiased.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities while deciding the case. These are categorized by the legal points they address:

Principles for Granting Anticipatory Bail

• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the factors to be considered while granting anticipatory bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.
• Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379, Supreme Court of India: Reiterated that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
• Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India: The Constitution Bench reiterated the factors to be considered while deciding an application for anticipatory bail, including the nature of the offense, the role of the person, and the likelihood of influencing the course of investigation.
• Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (1985) 2 SCC 597, Supreme Court of India: Distinguished between the considerations for granting anticipatory bail and regular bail.

Cancellation of Bail

• Puran vs. Ramvilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338, Supreme Court of India: Held that bail can be cancelled if the order granting it ignores material on record or is perverse.
• Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180, Supreme Court of India: Discussed the powers of the High Court and Sessions Court regarding bail and the grounds for cancellation, including serious infirmities in the order granting bail.
• Myakala Dharmarajam vs. The State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743, Supreme Court of India: Reiterated that bail can be cancelled if the order granting it suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Transfer of Investigation

• Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India, WP (Crl) 130 of 2020, Supreme Court of India: Stressed that the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI must be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances.
• Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad, (2013) 5 SCC 762, Supreme Court of India: Held that superior courts have the jurisdiction to direct further investigation, fresh investigation, or reinvestigation, and to transfer investigation from one agency to another.
• Pooja Pal vs Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135, Supreme Court of India: Observed that there is no embargo on the court to transfer an investigation to the CBI after submission of the charge sheet.
• Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160, Supreme Court of India: Upheld the power of the court to transfer an investigation to the CBI, irrespective of the stage of the trial.

Legal Provisions

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 506, and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with cruelty to a woman, dowry death, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation and causing miscarriage without woman’s consent respectively.
• Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibits the giving or taking of dowry.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Puran vs. Ramvilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight that an order granting bail can be set aside if it ignores material on record or is perverse.
• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694]*: The Court used this case to list the factors that must be considered while deciding on an application for anticipatory bail.
• Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar [(2012) 4 SCC 379]*: This authority was used to emphasize that anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
• Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1]*: The Court reiterated the considerations for granting anticipatory bail based on this Constitution Bench decision.
• Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 180]*: The Court cited this case to discuss the powers of the High Court and Sessions Court regarding bail and the grounds for cancellation.
• Myakala Dharmarajam vs. The State of Telangana [(2020) 2 SCC 743]*: The Court reiterated that bail can be cancelled if the order granting it suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.
• Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan [(1985) 2 SCC 597]*: The Court used this case to differentiate between the considerations for granting anticipatory bail and regular bail.
• Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India [WP (Crl) 130 of 2020]*: The Court emphasized the need for caution when transferring an investigation to the CBI, based on this case.
• Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad [(2013) 5 SCC 762]*: The Court relied on this case to establish the jurisdiction of superior courts to direct further investigation and to transfer investigation from one agency to another.
• Pooja Pal vs Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 135]*: The Court cited this case to observe that there is no bar on transferring an investigation to the CBI after submission of the charge sheet.
• Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana [(2016) 4 SCC 160]*: The Court cited this case to uphold the power of the court to transfer an investigation to the CBI, irrespective of the stage of the trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Deficiencies in the Police Investigation: The Court found that the investigation was not conducted properly, particularly in relation to the allegation of murder, the authenticity of the suicide note, and the financial transactions.
• Flawed High Court Order: The High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail was deemed to be based on flawed reasoning, ignoring key aspects of the FIR and the Sessions Court’s findings.
• Grave Allegations: The serious allegations of dowry harassment and murder, particularly the unnatural death within seven years of marriage, required a thorough and impartial investigation.
• Need for Impartiality: The Court expressed concerns about the influence of the accused and the potential for a biased investigation by the local police.

Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Was the High Court justified in granting anticipatory bail?

Issue 2: Was the police investigation adequate and unbiased?

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the father of the deceased. The court set aside the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the in-laws of the deceased. Furthermore, the court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a further investigation into the case, emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial inquiry. The court also made it clear that the CBI was not to be influenced by the charge sheet already filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

• Protection of Women: It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting women from dowry harassment and violence, particularly in cases of unnatural deaths within seven years of marriage.
• Thorough Investigation: The court’s order for a CBI investigation highlights the importance of a thorough, impartial, and unbiased inquiry in dowry death cases, especially when there are allegations of foul play.
• Limits on Anticipatory Bail: The judgment clarifies that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, particularly in serious offenses like dowry death, and that courts must consider all relevant factors before granting such relief.
• Judicial Scrutiny: It emphasizes the role of the judiciary in scrutinizing the orders of lower courts, especially when they appear to be flawed or contrary to established legal principles.
• Public Confidence: The decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI reinforces public confidence in the judicial system and its commitment to ensuring justice in sensitive cases.