Supreme Court Upholds Bail in Dowry Death Case: Seema Singh vs. CBI (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2018

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5611 of 2017)

Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.

When is bail justified in a serious criminal case, such as one involving dowry death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while reviewing a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that granted bail to an accused charged with the murder of his wife. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court correctly assessed the evidence and circumstances before granting bail, particularly when expert reports suggested the death was not accidental. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, delivered the judgment, with Justice A.K. Sikri authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Smt. Sara Singh, who was allegedly murdered by her husband, the respondent No. 2. The couple had married at an Arya Samaj Mandir in Lucknow on July 27, 2013. Due to family disapproval, Sara initially lived with her mother. In July 2015, the respondent No. 2 planned a trip with Sara to New Delhi/Leh. On July 9, 2015, near Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, their car reportedly met with an accident. The prosecution alleges that this was a pre-planned murder disguised as an accident. An FIR was registered on July 18, 2015, by the appellant, Sara’s mother, leading to the registration of Case Crime No. 387 of 2015 under Sections 498-A, 302, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sirsaganj. The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on July 24, 2015, and the CBI registered its case on October 19, 2015. The respondent No. 2 was arrested on November 25, 2016, but was later granted bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on March 9, 2017.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent No. 2’s bail application was initially rejected by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad, on December 15, 2016, and again on January 13, 2017. Subsequently, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail on March 9, 2017, subject to certain conditions. These conditions included not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, appearing in court on fixed dates, not committing similar offenses, and not influencing any person related to the case. The High Court also directed the trial court to expedite the case and emphasized that coercive measures could be taken to ensure witness presence. The High Court also mandated that the respondent surrender his passport, cooperate with the investigation, and attend all court dates without seeking adjournments.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Arguments

The prosecution, represented by Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Maninder Singh, argued that the High Court erred in granting bail. They highlighted reports from expert bodies like the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI), All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), and Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). These reports, according to the prosecution, indicated that the incident was not an accident but a pre-planned murder. Specifically, the AIIMS report suggested that Sara Singh was strangulated before the alleged accident. The prosecution also emphasized the respondent’s criminal history and influential political background, arguing that he should not be granted bail. They cited Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [ (2016) 15 SCC 422 ] and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. [ (2010) 14 SCC 496 ] to support their contention that bail should not be granted to individuals with criminal antecedents.

The defense, represented by Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, countered that the expert reports were not conclusive and were based on postmortem photographs, not the body itself. They also pointed out that the AIIMS report cautioned that its findings should be corroborated with circumstantial evidence. The defense argued that the High Court had rightly exercised its discretion in granting bail, and that the court should not interfere with such discretion unless it is shown to be perverse. They cited Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2015) 7 SCC 178 ] and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [ (2011) 1 SCC 694 ], emphasizing that expert opinions are not conclusive and that personal liberty should not be curtailed routinely.

The innovativeness of the argument by the defense was that they focused on the fact that the expert reports were based on photographs and not the body itself, and that the AIIMS report itself cautioned that its findings should be corroborated with circumstantial evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• Whether the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the respondent No. 2 was justified, considering the evidence and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail to respondent No. 2. The Court noted that the High Court had considered relevant factors and that its decision was not perverse. The Court also emphasized that the expert reports’ evidentiary value was yet to be tested and that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

The following table shows how the authorities were viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Presumption of Innocence: The court emphasized that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
• Discretion of the High Court: The court noted that the High Court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that the reasons given for granting bail were not perverse.
• Evidentiary Value of Expert Reports: The court observed that the evidentiary value of the expert reports was yet to be tested during the trial.
• Burden of Proof: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conditions of Bail: The court noted that the High Court had imposed strict conditions of bail to protect the interests of the prosecution.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but ultimately concluded that the High Court’s decision was not perverse and that the prosecution had not established sufficient grounds to cancel the bail.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.”
• “There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country.”
• “The material collected by the CBI during investigation is documentary in nature which are given on the basis of photographs produced before them and had to be tested during trial.”

Key Takeaways

• The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence.
• The grant of bail is the general rule, and putting a person in jail is an exception.
• The discretion of the High Court in granting bail should not be interfered with unless it is perverse.
• Expert opinions are not conclusive and must be tested during trial.
• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court other than upholding the High Court’s order to grant bail.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion about any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s discretion in granting bail should not be interfered with unless it is perverse, and that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle in criminal jurisprudence. The case also reinforces the principle that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters. The court found that the High Court had considered relevant factors and that the expert reports’ evidentiary value was yet to be tested during the trial.