The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and MR Shah while setting aside an Allahabad High Court which granted bail to a man accused in a dowry death case observed while the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most, the Supreme Court. (Sonu vs. Sonu Yadav)
Facts of the Case
The brother of the deceased in what is being considered as a dowry death, pending judgement had registered a First Information Report (FIR) on the 9th of February, 2019, at a Police Station at the District of Etawah for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1861.
The marriage ceremony between the sister of the appellant and the accused had solemnized on the 5th of July 2018, when a cash amount of Rs 15 lakhs, a motor vehicle and other household articles were claimed by the groom’s family and were thus provided in dowry.
On being unsatisfied with the amount of dowry, a further amount of Rs 5 lakhs was demanded. At about 8.45 pm of the 8th of February, 2019 a phone call was received which informed the appellant that if he wished to see his sister alive, an amount of Rs 5 lakhs should be arranged, after which such call was disconnected.
On the next day, the 9th of February, at about 1.30 am, the appellant allegedly received a phone call whereby he was required to take away the dead body of his sister.
After the charge sheet was filed, the respondent filed a bail application which was rejected by the Sessions Judge. He then moved the High Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the High Court allowed the application.
The Allahabad High Court had granted the bail to the accused on observing,
“Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.”
Contention of the Parties
Mr Vishal Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that (i) the High Court has adduced absolutely no reasons for the grant of bail; (ii) the submission before the High Court that the deceased was suffering from a mental illness is patently false and the so called medical prescription dated 1 January 2019 was issued by an Ayurvedic doctor about a month before the date of the incident on 1 January 2019; (iii) ex facie, the medical prescription would indicate that the deceased was not undergoing treatment for a mental condition; (iv) the death has taken place within a year of the marriage; and (v) having regard to the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and the presumptions which arise under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act, there was no justification for the High Court to grant bail at the present stage.
On the other hand, Mr Ravindra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent has supported the view of the High Court, on the ground that (i) the High Court has desisted from expressing any view on the merits which may impede the course of the trial; (ii) the statements which have been recorded during investigation would indicate that the death was as a result of hanging; (iii) there is no complicity whatsoever of the first respondent; (iv) hence, it would be appropriate for this Court not to interfere with the order granting bail to the first respondent.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court observed that “A copy of the medical prescription, which has been submitted before this Court, would prima facie indicate that there was no serious ailment. The medical prescription of the Ayurvedic doctor and the remedies prescribed belie such a claim. Prima facie, there are serious allegations in the FIR in regard to the harassment suffered by the deceased in close proximity to her death over demands for dowry by the accused. In view of the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the presumption which arises under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, the High Court was clearly not justified in granting bail.”
The Court also relied on the Brij Nandan Jaiswal vs. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal (2009) 1 SCC 678 to state that, “While it is true that at the time of considering an application for bail the High Court would not be required to launch into a detailed inquiry into the facts which have to be determined in the course of the trial, equally an application of mind by the High Court to the rival submissions is necessary. The High Court has merely recorded the submissions and in the extract which we have reproduced earlier proceeded to grant bail without any evaluation of the rival submissions.”
The Court also stated that “An order without reasons is fundamentally contrary to the norms which guide the judicial process. The administration of criminal justice by the High Court cannot be reduced to a mantra containing a recitation of general observations. That there has been a judicious application of mind by the judge who is deciding an application under Section 439 of the CrPC must emerge from the quality of the reasoning which is embodied in the order granting bail. While the reasons may be brief, it is the quality of the reasons which matters the most. That is because the reasons in a judicial order unravel the thought process of a trained judicial mind. We are constrained to make these observations because the reasons indicated in the judgment of the High Court, in this case, are becoming increasingly familiar in matters which come to this Court. It is time that such a practice is discontinued and that the reasons in support of orders granting bail comport with a judicial process which brings credibility to the administration of criminal justice.”
Thus, the Court held that “the order of the High Court granting bail without due application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances as well to the provisions of the law requires the interference of this Court.”
Hence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the grant of bail to the accused.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :