Summary
A 55-year-old mother-in-law was accused in a dowry death case. She surrendered ten months after the death and was then granted regular bail by the Sessions Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court cancelled the bail of its own motion, because the bail order had not mentioned her long absence. The Supreme Court restored the bail. She had looked after the deceased's minor child while the rest of the family were in jail or untraced, and the pandemic also played a part, so she was not shown to be a fugitive. Cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC needs cogent grounds, usually some supervening event. It is not a disciplinary measure for conduct before bail was granted.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling, under Section 439(2) CrPC, regular bail granted to an accused in a dowry death case because the Sessions Court had not adverted to her long absence before surrender.
Provisions considered
- Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming grounds, ordinarily a supervening event or liberty counteracting a proper trial; it is not appellate or revisional review of the bail order. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Sections 304B and 498A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences charged against the appellant; the Court's order is without bearing on the merits at trial. (¶¶ 4, 16, 23)
- Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961Also charged in the FIR against the appellant. (¶ 4)
Held
- Though the appellant's unavailability until her surrender on 16.07.2021 cannot be appreciated, she was not an absconder intentionally evading the law, given that she alone was available to look after the deceased's minor child, the Covid-19 pandemic, her age of 55 and her repeated applications for pre-arrest bail. (¶¶ 13, 16)
- The Sessions Court's order, though not explicit on every factor, considered the pre-arrest bail of two co-accused and regular bail of the appellant's husband and suffered from no fundamental error warranting annulment. (¶ 17)
- In cancelling bail the High Court exercised power under Section 439(2), not appeal or revision; cogent and overwhelming circumstances, ordinarily a supervening event, are needed; the prosecution did not allege misuse of liberty or breach of conditions; and cancellation cannot be ordered for perceived indiscipline before bail or treated as a disciplinary proceeding, being warranted only where liberty would counteract a proper trial. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 1972 of 2022 allowed; the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order dated 10.02.2022 in M.Cr.C. No. 46653 of 2021 set aside and the Sessions Court's bail order dated 05.08.2021 restored, without bearing on the merits.