Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Dowry Death Case: Nisha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: September 24, 2021

Citation: Criminal Appeal No.1080 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4259 of 2021)

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can an individual facing charges related to dowry death and harassment be granted anticipatory bail? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the case of *Nisha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*. The court considered the circumstances of the case and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, setting aside the High Court’s order. This judgment highlights the considerations for granting anticipatory bail in cases involving serious criminal charges, balancing individual liberty and the need for investigation.

Case Background

The appellant, Nisha, was facing charges under Sections 304-B (dowry death), 498A (cruelty to a woman by husband or relatives), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. These charges stemmed from FIR No. 104 of 2021, which was lodged on March 23, 2021, at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. Nisha applied for anticipatory bail in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, but her application was rejected on May 7, 2021. Consequently, she appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, on June 22, 2021, issued notice and granted interim relief, stating that “no coercive action against the petitioner shall be taken.” The State of Madhya Pradesh, in its affidavit-in-reply, stated that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed against some of the accused on June 26, 2021. However, the charge-sheet against Nisha was pending because of the interim order from the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Nisha, initially sought anticipatory bail from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. The High Court rejected her application on May 7, 2021. Following this, Nisha appealed to the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, on June 22, 2021, granted interim protection to Nisha by ordering that no coercive action be taken against her. The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a counter-affidavit stating that the investigation was complete, and a charge sheet was filed against some of the accused on June 26, 2021. However, due to the Supreme Court’s interim order, the charge sheet against Nisha was not filed.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with dowry death, which occurs when a woman dies due to burns or bodily injury or under abnormal 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.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses cruelty to a woman by her husband or any relative of her husband. It includes any willful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, as well as harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 3 deals with the penalty for giving or taking dowry, and Section 4 deals with the penalty for demanding dowry.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court included:

• Appellant’s Argument: The appellant, Nisha, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that she was entitled to protection from arrest given the circumstances of the case. She contended that she was cooperating with the investigation and would continue to do so.
• Complainant’s Argument: Mr. Varun Thakur, the advocate for the original complainant, raised concerns about the case, including the fact that a second complaint was filed regarding pressure exerted by the accused’s family. This suggests an attempt to influence the investigation and the witnesses.
• State’s Argument: The State of Madhya Pradesh stated that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet had been filed against some of the accused. However, the charge-sheet against Nisha was pending due to the interim order of the Supreme Court.

The innovativeness of the argument by the complainant lies in highlighting the second complaint, indicating a possible attempt to influence the investigation, which is a crucial factor in deciding whether to grant bail.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant, Nisha, should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the offences registered against her under Sections 304-B, 498A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its order, but it considered the overall context of the case and the submissions made by all parties.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no specific authorities cited by the Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail was influenced by a combination of factors. The Court considered the overall circumstances of the case, which included the fact that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet was already filed against some of the accused. The Court also took into account the interim order passed by the Supreme Court itself, which had protected the appellant from coercive action. The Court balanced the seriousness of the charges with the need to protect individual liberty and ensure a fair process. The fact that the charge-sheet against Nisha was pending due to the interim order also weighed in the mind of the Court.

The Supreme Court, after considering the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. The court directed that in the event of her arrest, the arresting officer shall release her on bail upon her furnishing a cash security of Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties. The court also imposed conditions that the appellant shall cooperate with the investigation and not misuse the liberty granted to her. Any violation of these conditions would lead to the cancellation of her anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet was filed against some of the accused. The charge-sheet against the appellant was pending because of the interim order of the Court.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the totality of circumstances. The Court stated, “Considering the totality of the circumstances, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.” The court also emphasized the need for the appellant to cooperate with the investigation, stating, “The appellant shall render complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation.” Furthermore, the court cautioned against misuse of the liberty granted, stating, “The appellant shall not in any manner misuse the liberty granted to her.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Anticipatory bail can be granted in cases involving serious charges like dowry death and harassment, considering the specific circumstances.
• ✓ Cooperation with the investigation is a crucial condition for granting anticipatory bail.
• ✓ Interim orders from higher courts can impact the progress of investigations and the filing of charge-sheets.
• ✓ The courts consider the totality of circumstances while granting anticipatory bail, balancing the need for investigation with the protection of individual liberty.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

1. In the event of the arrest of the appellant, the arresting officer shall release her on bail on her furnishing cash security of Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties.
2. The appellant shall render complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation.
3. The appellant shall not misuse the liberty granted to her.
4. Any violation of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted in serious criminal cases, provided that the accused is willing to cooperate with the investigation and there are no other compelling reasons to deny bail. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the totality of circumstances, including the completion of the investigation, the interim order of the court, and the willingness of the accused to cooperate, are crucial considerations for granting anticipatory bail. This decision does not represent a change in the previous position of the law but rather an application of existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

In the case of *Nisha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*, the Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, Nisha, who was facing charges related to dowry death and harassment. The Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the completion of the investigation and the appellant’s willingness to cooperate. This judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for effective investigation in criminal cases.