Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Dowry Death Case: Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 04 October 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 668

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can an accused, who has been declared an absconder for over two years, be granted anticipatory bail merely on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and cooperation with the investigation after being granted interim bail? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the death of a young woman within three months of her marriage, where her mother-in-law was accused of dowry harassment and murder. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The complainant, father of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) on 02 October 2017, against seven accused persons, including the mother-in-law of the deceased (Respondent-Accused). The complainant alleged that his daughter was married to the son of the Respondent-Accused on 28 July 2017. Soon after the marriage, the deceased was allegedly harassed and physically tortured by her in-laws for dowry. The complainant stated that his daughter died an unnatural death on 02 October 2017, under suspicious circumstances. The Respondent-Accused was specifically accused of exploiting the deceased and depriving her of rest, despite her working as a full-time lecturer. The deceased had informed the complainant on 30 September 2017, about being physically tortured for dowry. The complainant was assured to visit her the next day, but before that could happen, the accused allegedly poisoned her on 01 October 2017, leading to her death on the following morning. Medical evidence supported the claim of poisoning.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent-Accused’s initial anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 21 December 2017. Subsequently, her petition before the High Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 08 March 2018. Due to non-cooperation with the investigation, the police obtained arrest warrants against her, and she was declared an absconder on 23 April 2018, under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Respondent-Accused evaded arrest until the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son (brother-in-law of the deceased) on 22 October 2019. Capitalizing on this, she filed two petitions before the High Court, seeking to quash the order declaring her an absconder and for anticipatory bail. The High Court granted her interim bail on 03 December 2020, after which she joined the investigation on 07 December 2020. The High Court then allowed both petitions, setting aside the absconder order and granting anticipatory bail, primarily on the grounds that she had joined the investigation and was entitled to parity with the co-accused.

Legal Framework

The case involves Sections 304B (Dowry Death), 302 (Murder), and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). Section 304B of the I.P.C. deals with dowry death, stating that:

“Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.”

Section 302 of the I.P.C. defines the punishment for murder. Section 120B of the I.P.C. deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. The judgment also refers to Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which deals with the proclamation for person absconding.

Arguments

Appellant (Complainant):

• The High Court overlooked established principles for granting anticipatory bail.
• The Respondent-Accused was an absconder for over two years and only joined the investigation after securing interim bail.
• The Respondent-Accused should not be granted parity with the co-accused as the allegations against her are specific and serious.
• The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the conduct of the accused.

Respondent-Accused:

• She is cooperating with the investigation.
• She is entitled to parity with the co-accused who was granted anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.
• There was a procedural irregularity in declaring her an absconder.
• The complainant has widened the net and included people other than the family members of the in-laws of the deceased, and being a retired District Attorney, the version of the complainant should be seen with suspicious eyes.

The main contention of the complainant was that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent-Accused, especially considering her conduct of absconding for over two years. The Respondent-Accused argued that she was cooperating with the investigation and deserved parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail. The High Court had primarily relied on these two grounds to grant anticipatory bail. The complainant argued that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the societal impact of granting bail in such a case. The Respondent-Accused also argued that there was a procedural irregularity in declaring her an absconder, and that the complainant’s version should be seen with suspicion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a separate section but addressed the following key questions:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent-Accused.
2. Whether the Respondent-Accused was entitled to parity with the co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]* regarding the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that there must be “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” to cancel bail. This principle was further reiterated in X vs. State of Telegana and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 511]*. The court also mentioned Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the proclamation for a person absconding.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Respondent-Accused’s conduct of absconding for over two years.
• The gravity of the offense, which involved dowry death and murder.
• The specific allegations against the Respondent-Accused, which were different from the co-accused.
• The fact that the deceased died an unnatural death within three months of her marriage.
• The need for the Investigating Agency to have a free hand in investigating the role of the Respondent-Accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was a combination of factual considerations (such as the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the death) and legal principles (such as the guidelines for granting anticipatory bail and the need for a fair investigation).

The Supreme Court considered the fact that the Respondent-Accused had been absconding for over two years, and that she only joined the investigation after securing interim bail. The court also considered the gravity of the offense and the specific allegations against the Respondent-Accused, which were different from the co-accused. The court concluded that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court stated, “Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Respondent-Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant pre-arrest bail in a case of grave offence.” The Court also noted, “The conduct of the Respondent-Accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary relief.” Further, the Court observed, “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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court’s decision and found that it had overlooked crucial aspects such as the accused’s absconding status and the gravity of the offense. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in a routine manner, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The court also clarified that parity with a co-accused is not a sufficient ground for granting bail if the allegations and conduct of the accused are materially different. The implications for future cases are that courts must carefully consider the conduct of the accused, the gravity of the offense, and the need for a fair investigation before granting anticipatory bail.

Key Takeaways

• Anticipatory bail should not be granted to an accused who has been declared an absconder and has evaded arrest for a prolonged period.
• Cooperation with the investigation after securing interim bail is not a sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail.
• Parity with a co-accused is not a valid ground for granting bail if the allegations and conduct of the accused are materially different.
• Courts must consider the gravity of the offense and the conduct of the accused while deciding on anticipatory bail applications.
• The Investigating Agency should have a free hand in investigating cases of unnatural death, especially in cases of dowry death.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 28 January 2021, and directed the Respondent-Accused to surrender before the Trial Court within one week. The Court clarified that after surrender, the Respondent-Accused would be free to seek regular bail before the Trial Court, which would be decided as per law without being influenced by the Supreme Court’s order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who has been declared an absconder and has evaded arrest for a prolonged period, especially in grave offenses like dowry death and murder. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases, such as Daulat Ram, regarding the cancellation of bail and emphasizes that each case must be decided based on its own unique facts and circumstances. The judgment also clarifies that parity with a co-accused is not a sufficient ground for granting bail if the allegations and conduct of the accused are materially different. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing principles and provides a clear application of those principles to a specific set of facts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab and another sets aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent-Accused. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail, particularly given that the accused was an absconder for over two years and only joined the investigation after securing interim bail. The Court emphasized that the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the specific allegations against her were all crucial factors that the High Court had overlooked. The judgment reinforces the importance of considering all relevant factors when deciding on anticipatory bail applications, especially in cases involving serious offenses such as dowry death and murder.