The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court, are also amongst a few situations, where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail : Supreme Court

the mother­in­law of the deceased and is charged under Sections ‘Complainant’) who is the father of the deceased lodged an FIR dated Page | 1 Respondent­accused on 28­07­2017. Soon thereafter the accused on the pretext of dowry demands. His daughter died an unnatural allegations vis­a­vis Respondent­Accused alleging that she exploited to the deceased. The deceased contacted the Complainant on have clandestinely administered poison to the deceased on 01.10.2017 which led to her unfortunate demise the following Page | 2 rejected on 21.12.2017. Discontented the Respondent­Accused dismissed as withdrawn on 08.03.2018. Meanwhile on account of non­cooperation with the ongoing investigation the SHO of the concerned police station applied for and got issued arrest warrants against the Respondent­Accused from Judicial Magistrate. However 04­2018 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22.10.2019. Thereafter taking advantage of this subsequent event and presenting the same as a material change in circumstance Respondent­Accused filed two petitions before the High Court seeking quashing of the order that declared her a ‘proclaimed offender’ and further sought the relief of Page | 3 It is noted explicitly that during the pendency of the above­ mentioned proceedings the High Court granted interim bail to the the investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter vide the impugned order High Court allowed both the petitions and set aside the order her anticipatory bail. These reliefs were primarily allowed on two grounds ­ firstly that the Respondent­Accused had joined the investigation and undertook to remain present at each date of trial proceedings secondly she was entitled to seek parity with the co­ The aggrieved Complainant is before us contending inter­alia the well­established principles which guide courts to exercise their discretion in the matter of granting anticipatory bail. Learned State 8. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and Page | 4 that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally there can be supervening conducive to fair trial making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana1 observed cogent and overwhelming circumstances are bail already granted. Generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no These principles have been reiterated time and again more Page | 5 order granting bail legally untenable. The gravity of the offence of criminal justice system. This Court has repeatedly viewed that while granting bail especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses threatening the family members of the 11. Broadly speaking each case has its own unique factual scenario which holds the key for adjudication of bail matters including and protrudes our medieval social structure which still wails for In the case in hand the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by the fact that the Respondent­Accused was ‘co­ Page | 6 operating’ with investigation. This is however contrary to the record chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the as Magistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the 13. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Respondent­Accused as an absconder that by itself was not a on record is prima facie satisfied that it is a case of false or over­ went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the materially different. It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are other Page | 7 absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary accused with whom she seeks parity. We are thus of the considered favour of the Respondent­Accused. It has to be borne in mind that the deceased met with a tragic end within three months of her or 304B I.P.C. but the fact remains that a young life came to an abrupt end before realizing any of her dreams which were grimly shattered. She died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home Investigating Agency therefore deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the Respondent­Accused if any in the unnatural and untimely 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent­Accused may be the deceased. According to him the entire version of the Appellant­ District Attorney has a legally trained mind. We do not deem it Page | 8 In light of the above discussion and without expressing any views on merit we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 28.01.2021 and direct the Respondent­Accused to surrender the merits of the case. We also clarify that after the surrender the Respondent­Accused will be free to seek regular bail before the Page | 9

Summary: Bail can be revoked where the court has considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material available on record which renders the order granting bail legally untenable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the bench lead by Justice Surya Kant in the case of Vipin Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr. [CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1161­1162 OF 2021] (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NOS. 5404­5405 OF 2021). Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR dated 02.10.2017 against 7 accused persons, 4 of whom are members of the in-laws family of the deceased including the Respondent­Accused. The Complainant has alleged that his daughter was married to the son of Respondent on 28­07­2017. Soon thereafter, the accused family members started to harass and physically torture the deceased on the pretext of dowry demands. His daughter died an unnatural death on 02­10­2017 in suspicious circumstances. There are specific allegations vis­a­vis Respondent alleging that she exploited the deceased and deprived her of any chance to recuperate from the arduous domestic chores. The Complainant accused the respondent to have allegedly administered poison to the deceased on 01.10.2017, which led to her unfortunate demise the following morning. The factum of poisoning is supported by medical evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency. Soon after the FIR was lodged, the Respondent­ Accused moved ananticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on 21.12.2017. Discontented, the Respondent­Accused approached the High Court for a similar relief, but the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.03.2018. Meanwhile, on account of non-cooperation with the ongoing investigation, arrest warrants were issued against the Respondent­Accused. However, the arrest warrant could not be executed as the Respondent­Accused had been on the run and she was thus declared an absconder on 23­04­2018 under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The Respondent­Accused continued to evade her arrest until this Court granted anticipatory bail to her younger son on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, taking advantage of this subsequent event and presenting the same as a material change in circumstance, Respondent­Accused filed two petitions before the High Court, seeking quashing of the order that declared her a ‘proclaimed offender’ and further sought the relief of anticipatory bail. The High Court granted interim bail to the Respondent­Accused on 03.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, she joined the investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, High  Court allowed both the petitions and set aside  the order declaring the Respondent­Accused as an absconder and also granted her anticipatory bail. These  reliefs  were  primarily  allowed  on  two grounds ­ firstly that  the  Respondent­Accused had  joined  the investigation and undertook to remain present at each date of trial proceedings; secondly she was entitled to seek parity with the co accused Daksh Adya whom this Court granted anticipatory bail. The aggrieved Complainant approached the Hon’ble Court contending inter­alia, that the High Court has committed a grave error of law in over­looking the principles in granting anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble Court after considering the cases of Daulat Ram  and others vs. State  of  Haryana and X vs. State of Telangana and Another, held that, “In the case at hand, Respondent­Accused remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court. The High Court went   on   a   wrong   premise   in   granting   anticipatory   bail   to   the Respondent­Accused. Without expressing any views on merit, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 28.01.2021 and direct the Respondent­Accused to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one week.”