2021 (10) TMI 1479 - SC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory bail revoked; accused must surrender within one week after absconding over two years, parity rejected

The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC order granting anticipatory bail, and directed the accused to surrender to the trial court within one week. ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Dowry death - offence punishable u/s 304B, 302 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code - accused declared as proclaimed offender - accused remained absconding for two years - parity with the co-accused - HELD THAT:- It would be fruitful to recapitulate the well­ settled legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to cancel the bail. This Court in Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana [1994 (11) TMI 424 - SUPREME COURT] observed that 'The satisfaction of the court, 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. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.' In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by the fact that the Respondent­ Accused was ‘co-operating’ with investigation. This is, however, contrary to the record as the Respondent­ Accused 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. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as Magistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court in the 2nd round of bail proceedings. The ground of parity with co-­accused Daksh Adya invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent ­Mother-­in-­Law and her younger son Daksh Adya are materially different. It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are other specific allegations accusing the Respondent­ Accused of playing a key role in the alleged offence. The conduct of the Respondent­ Accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary relief - The Respondent­ Accused is the mother-­in-law of the deceased. The Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the role of the Respondent­ Accused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely death of her daughter in­-law. The Respondent ­Accused may be right in contending that the Appellant­ Complainant has widened the net and included even other than the family members of the in­-laws of the deceased. According to him, the entire version of the Appellant Complainant should be seen with suspicious eyes as he being a retired District Attorney, has a legally trained mind. It is not deemed necessary to comment upon this contention at this stage. Suffice to mention that the needle of suspicion revolves around only against the Respondent ­Accused and her family members while at this stage the others have been found innocent by the investigating agency. The Respondent­ Accused is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of one week - the impugned order of the High Court is set aside - appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to an accused in respect of alleged offences under Sections 302, 304B and 120B I.P.C. was legally sustainable where the accused had earlier been declared a proclaimed offender and remained absconding for over two years. 2. Whether subsequent joining of investigation and interim cooperation by an accused who was earlier an absconder constitutes a material change of circumstance justifying setting aside the order declaring the accused a proclaimed offender and granting anticipatory bail. 3. Whether parity with co-accused who earlier obtained anticipatory bail can be invoked to grant identical relief to an accused whose allegations and conduct (including prolonged abscondence) are materially different. 4. Whether the High Court erred by overlooking relevant materials and applying irrelevant factors in exercise of discretion while conferring anticipatory bail in a case involving serious and potentially heinous offences. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Sustainability of anticipatory bail where accused was a proclaimed offender and absconded Legal framework: Bail and its cancellation are governed by principles distinguishing initial grant of bail from cancellation; anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and exercise of discretion must account for gravity of offence, conduct of accused, and possibilities of obstructing investigation or influencing witnesses. Precedent Treatment: The Court reiterated established authorities that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming reasons; however, grant of bail (especially anticipatory) may be interfered with when the court granting bail has considered irrelevant factors or ignored material on record rendering the order legally untenable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the High Court's reliance on purported 'co-operation' post-joining of investigation to be contrary to the record showing prolonged abscondence for over two years and that joining occurred only after interim bail was secured. Abscondence and failure to cooperate during investigation bear directly on the discretionary exercise in bail matters, particularly in serious offences where the investigating agency requires a free hand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An accused's prolonged abscondence and declaration as a proclaimed offender are relevant and weighty considerations militating against grant of anticipatory bail; mere later joining of investigation after securing interim protection does not, without more, justify anticipatory bail in such circumstances. Obiter - General observations on the need for investigating agencies to have a free hand in grave offences. Conclusion: The anticipatory bail was unsustainable insofar as the High Court failed to give appropriate weight to the fact of prolonged abscondence and proclaimed offender status; the matter was remitted to allow surrender and further proceedings, without precluding regular bail application before trial court. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Effect of subsequent cooperation after being an absconder as material change Legal framework: Granting of anticipatory bail on the basis of changed circumstances is permissible where a prima facie review of case diary and material suggests false or over-exaggerated accusation or other circumstances making continued detention unnecessary; mere procedural irregularity or later co-operation does not automatically constitute sufficient material change in serious offences. Precedent Treatment: The Court cited principles requiring prima facie satisfaction by the granting court and emphasised that supervening events justifying bail must be cogent, and that courts should not mechanically cancel or grant bail without assessing whether conditions undermine a fair trial. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the accused's joining of investigation only after obtaining interim protection was not an adequate ground to set aside the proclaimed offender order and to grant anticipatory bail because there was no prima facie basis on the record to conclude the accusation was false or exaggerated. The timing and conduct of the accused (joining after protection) undermined the claim of bona fide cooperation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Post-abscondence cooperation, obtained after securing protection, is not ipso facto a material change justifying anticipatory bail in grave offences absent prima facie satisfaction that the accusation is false/overstated. Obiter - Observations clarifying that procedural irregularity in proclamation does not automatically entitle pre-arrest relief. Conclusion: The High Court erred in treating subsequent cooperation as a sufficient material change; the denial of weight to the history of abscondence rendered its order unsustainable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Applicability and limits of parity with co-accused Legal framework: Parity is a recognised principle where similarly situated accused should receive similar treatment; however parity cannot be invoked where factual allegations, individual conduct, or material distinctions place accused on different footing. Precedent Treatment: The Court reaffirmed that parity cannot override material differences in allegations or conduct, especially when the accused seeking parity has specific allegations against them or has engaged in conduct (such as abscondence) that materially differentiates them from co-accused. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed material differences between the accused and the co-accused who obtained anticipatory bail - specifically, allegations of a key role against the accused and prolonged abscondence. Those differences made parity inapplicable; granting parity ignored crucial evidence bearing on discretionary exercise. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Parity cannot be the sole basis for conferring anticipatory bail where the accused's allegations and conduct (including abscondence) materially differ from those of co-accused. Obiter - Emphasis that each bail application must be adjudicated on facts and materials before the court. Conclusion: The High Court erred in applying parity; the accused was not entitled to anticipatory bail on the basis of equality with the co-accused whose factual position differed materially. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Error in exercise of discretion by overlooking relevant material / considering irrelevant factors in grave offence Legal framework: Exercise of discretion in bail matters must heed relevant materials and avoid reliance on irrelevant factors; in serious offences, courts must consider potential for influencing witnesses, fleeing, or impeding fair trial. Precedent Treatment: The Court reiterated that superior courts can and should interfere with bail orders where grant of bail was legally untenable due to disregard of material or consideration of irrelevant factors, particularly in cases involving serious societal impact. Interpretation and reasoning: The High Court's primary reliance on asserted cooperation and parity, without adequately considering the record of abscondence and specific allegations, amounted to ignoring relevant material and considering irrelevant factors. Given the gravity of alleged offences and medical corroboration of poisoning, the Investigating Agency was entitled to a free hand and the High Court's exercise of discretion was not justified. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An order granting anticipatory bail is vitiated where the granting court ignores material facts (e.g., prolonged abscondence, specific role alleged) and bases relief on irrelevant or insufficient circumstances. Obiter - Remarks on societal impact and the need to guard administration of criminal justice. Conclusion: The grant of anticipatory bail was legally untenable; the High Court failed to properly exercise discretion. The Court set aside the order and directed surrender, preserving the accused's right to seek regular bail before trial court to be decided on merits. FINAL CONCLUSION (limited to present proceedings) The Court set aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail and quashing proclaimed-offender declaration, ordered the accused to surrender within one week, and clarified that the observations are for present proceedings only and do not determine merits; any regular bail application post-surrender to be decided in accordance with law.