Supreme Court Reinstates Anticipatory Bail Emphasizing Need for Cogent Reasons

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order canceling anticipatory bail granted to the parents and brother of the deceased's husband. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for very cogent reasons to cancel bail, highlighting the lack of evidence of abuse of bail. The court reinstated the anticipatory bail, noting errors in the lower court's and High Court's decisions, emphasizing the importance of considering supervening circumstances and relevant factors before canceling bail in serious cases like dowry death.

---

---

Issues involved: Grant of anticipatory bail, cancellation of anticipatory bail, grounds for cancellation of bail.

Grant of anticipatory bail: The Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the parents and brother of the deceased's husband but not to the husband himself. The High Court cancelled the bail stating that no positive finding was recorded regarding the accused and deceased living separately. The High Court's decision was based on the seriousness of the dowry death case and lack of prima facie evidence justifying anticipatory bail.

Cancellation of anticipatory bail: The Supreme Court found errors in both the lower court's and High Court's decisions. The Additional Sessions Judge had noted that the accused were living separately from the deceased and her husband, supported by evidence like the ration card. The Supreme Court emphasized that very cogent reasons are required for cancelling bail, such as interference with justice or risk of absconding. The High Court failed to consider supervening circumstances and relevant factors for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case versus cancelling bail already granted.

Grounds for cancellation of bail: The Supreme Court highlighted that bail should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner and must consider if the accused have abused the concession of bail. The High Court's decision to cancel the anticipatory bail was deemed unjustified as there was no evidence of abuse of bail during the intervening period. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the anticipatory bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.

---