Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 1190 - SUPREME COURTDowry Death - Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 - deceased had allegedly committed suicide after one year and eight months of marriage and further she was pregnant at the time when she had taken her life - whether the Appellant, who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased, has made out a case for anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the deceased had allegedly committed suicide after one year and eight months of marriage and further she was pregnant at the time when she had taken her life. On the basis of the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, an FIR was registered and during the course of the investigation, the police recorded the supplementary statements of Hira Lal, father of the deceased, the neighbour of the deceased near the matrimonial home as well as the complainant -mother of the deceased. According to the prosecution, it has been clearly made out, particularly, insofar as the Appellant is concerned, that there was a definite allegation against him. Further, the Appellant and other family members subjected the deceased to cruelty with a view to demand dowry, right from the date of marriage and also immediately before the date of her death. By placing the relevant materials and two status reports submitted by the police, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG submitted that the Appellant was a Proclaimed Offender. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail. In the light of the conditions prescribed in Section 438 of the Code and conduct of the Appellant immediately after the incident as well as after the interim protection granted by this Court, we are of the view that the Appellant has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. Unless free hand is given to the investigating agency, particularly, in the light of the allegations made against the Appellant and his family members, the truth will not surface. Therefore, we are unable to accept the claim of the Appellant. We make it clear that while upholding the rejection of the anticipatory bail, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We also clarify that after surrender, the Appellant is free to move bail application before the Court concerned which may be disposed of in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012 stands vacated. The Appellant is directed to surrender within a period of one week from today.
|