Supreme Court Upholds Bail Granted by Trial Court in Dowry Death Case: Bhuri Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 November 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 988
Judges: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Can a High Court cancel a bail order granted by a Trial Court simply because it disagrees with the Trial Court’s assessment of facts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal related to a dowry death case. The core issue was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted to the appellant by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that bail should not be cancelled lightly unless there are compelling reasons. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR filed against Bhuri Bai (the appellant) and others for offences under Section 304B (dowry death), Section 498A (cruelty to a married woman) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accusations were that the deceased, the appellant’s daughter-in-law, was subjected to physical and mental torture for dowry, leading to her death by hanging on 11 September 2020. A suicide note implicated the husband and in-laws, including the appellant.

The appellant’s initial plea for pre-arrest bail was rejected by the Sessions Court on 18 October 2020. However, the High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the sister-in-law on 2 November 2020 and the Trial Court granted pre-arrest bail to the brother-in-law on 18 November 2020. The appellant’s pre-arrest bail applications were withdrawn on 11 December 2020 and 16 February 2021. The charge sheet was filed on 13 December 2020, noting that the appellant was absconding.

The appellant’s husband was arrested and granted regular bail on 23 November 2020. The appellant surrendered on 16 July 2021, and a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 2 August 2021. Subsequently, the Trial Court granted regular bail to the appellant on 5 August 2021, considering that pre-arrest bail had been granted to two co-accused and regular bail to her husband.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court, while considering a second bail application by the appellant’s son (husband of the deceased), took suo motu cognizance of the Trial Court’s order granting bail to the appellant. The High Court noted that the Trial Court had not considered the fact that the appellant was absconding until her surrender on 16 July 2021. The High Court, though rejecting the bail plea of the son, initiated a separate case to show cause why the appellant’s bail should not be cancelled.

In its final order on 10 February 2022, the High Court cancelled the appellant’s bail, observing that she had surrendered only after her husband was granted bail. The High Court also noted that the appellant’s explanation regarding the care of the minor child was not mentioned in her bail application before the Trial Court. The High Court referred to the decision in Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.36/2022) regarding the parameters for granting bail and concluded that the bail granted to the appellant could not be judicially approved.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 304B 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 suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives for dowry.
  “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 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
  “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  “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: These sections prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.
  “3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.—If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.”
  “4. Penalty for demanding dowry.—If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.”
• Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to cancel bail granted to an accused.
  “A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court took an unduly stern view without considering that she did not intend to abscond. She highlighted that she had made repeated attempts to secure pre-arrest bail.
• The appellant contended that she could not surrender earlier due to family circumstances, as other family members were either in custody or on the run. She was the only person available to care for the deceased’s minor child.
• The appellant submitted that the allegations under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 lacked cogent material support. She also pointed out that the Trial Court had granted bail considering her age (55 years) and the fact that other co-accused, except her husband, had also been granted bail.
• The appellant argued that her omission to surrender earlier should not be considered an act of absconsion, especially considering the adversities created by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent (State) argued that the Trial Court was unjustified in granting bail to the appellant, especially since she was not traceable until the filing of the first charge sheet on 13 December 2020.
• The respondent contended that the Trial Court had granted bail in a mechanical manner without considering the material on record.
• The respondent submitted that the High Court was justified in disapproving the Trial Court’s order due to the nature of the accusations against the appellant.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted by the Trial Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Laws:

• Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.36/2022) – Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to by the High Court to justify the cancellation of bail, but the Supreme Court distinguished it and held that the High Court misapplied the principles laid down in this case.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to dowry death.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to cruelty to a married woman.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relating to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Relating to prohibition of giving or taking dowry.
• Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Relating to the power of the High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Manoj Kumar Khokhar v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]*: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that the High Court had misapplied its principles. The Supreme Court clarified that the principles laid down in this case were not applicable to the facts of the present case.
• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations under this section but did not find it sufficient to cancel the bail.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Supreme Court considered the allegations of cruelty but did not find it sufficient to cancel the bail.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Supreme Court did not specifically discuss this section in its judgment.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: The Supreme Court considered the allegations related to dowry but did not find it sufficient to cancel the bail.
• Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to cancel bail under this section should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The Court emphasized that the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection.
• The Court noted that the appellant’s absence was not intentional absconsion, and she had surrendered when her husband was granted bail.
• The Court considered the fact that the appellant was taking care of the minor child of the deceased.
• The Court also took note of the Covid-19 pandemic and the adversities it created.
• The Court observed that the Trial Court had considered the relevant facts and circumstances while granting bail to the appellant.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (such as the appellant’s family circumstances and the care of the minor child) and legal principles (such as the careful use of power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). The factual aspects weighed slightly more than the legal aspects in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection.
• Bail should not be cancelled merely because the High Court disagrees with the Trial Court’s assessment of facts.
• Unless there is a strong case based on a supervening event, an order granting bail should not be lightly interfered with.
• The absence of an accused should not be considered as intentional absconsion if there are valid reasons for the same.
• Courts should consider the family circumstances and other relevant factors while deciding on bail matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, apart from setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the Trial Court’s order granting bail to the appellant. The Court clarified that its order would not affect the merit consideration of the matter by the Trial Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection. The Court reiterated that bail should not be cancelled unless there are compelling reasons, such as misuse of liberty or violation of bail conditions. This judgment reinforces the principle that an order granting bail should not be lightly interfered with, unless there is a strong case based on any supervening event. There is no change in previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Bhuri Bai, setting aside the High Court’s order that had cancelled her bail. The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing that the power to cancel bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection. The Court also considered the appellant’s circumstances, including her family situation and the fact that she was taking care of the deceased’s minor child. This judgment underscores the importance of not interfering with bail orders unless there are compelling reasons and reinforces the principle that the power to cancel bail should not be used as a disciplinary measure.