DOLAT RAM AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 24-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DOLAT RAM AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF HARYANA 
NOVEMBER 24, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 304B-Dowry Death Case-
Cance/lation of anticipatory bail-Grounds for;-Bail once granted should 
not be cancelled in a mechanical manner. 
A 
B 
In a case relating to the alleged dowry death, the Addi. Sessions C 
Judge granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of the 
husband. The State filed a petition seeking cancellation of the 
anticipatory bail, granted to the appellants. The High Court cancelled 
the bail observing that no positive finding has been recorded by the 
Addi. Sessions Judge in his order to the effect that the respondents and D 
the deceased were living separately. The High Court further held that 
no prima-facie case was made out which could justify the grant of 
anticipatory bail. 
This appeal has been filed against the order of the cancellation of 
the anticipatory bail. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. Whereas the Addi. Sessions Judge was not justified in 
observing while granting anticipatory bail that possibly the accused-
applicants have been roped in falsely, at that initial stage, when F 
possibly the investigation was not even completed let alone any 
evidence had been led at the trial, the High Court also fell in error in 
cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants. The Addi. 
Sessions Judge had noticed that even according to the statement in the 
FIR, the appellants were living separately from the deceased and her 
husband, and that the factum of separate residence was also supported G 
by the ration card. These considerations were relevant considerations 
for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail. [71 E, F] 
1.2. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and 
the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with 
no different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are H 
69 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. 6 ~.C.R 
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail, ~lready 
granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, 
broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to 
interfere wit_h the due process of administration of justice or evasion ·or 
attempt to evade the due process of justice or. abuse of the concession 
granted to the accused in any manner. The sa~isfaction of the Court, on 
the basis of material placed on the record of the . possibility of t~e 
accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of 
· bail. However, bail once granted . should not be cancelled in a 
mechanical inanner without considering wh_ether 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. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by 
the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The 
High Court overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for 
rejecting bail in a no.n-bailable case iii the first instance and the 
cancellation 'or bail already granted. [71 G, H~ 72 A to C] 
1.3. This Court is satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail 
to the appellants, for the reasons given by the 'High Court, was not 
justified. Nothing h_as been brought to the notice of this Court either 
from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants · 
have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the ·concession of bail during 
t~e iiltervening_ p~riod. [72 DJ 
· 
. 
. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 839 
of 1994. · · 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.94 of the Punjab an~ Haryana 
·High Cour(in Crl. Misc. No. 6266-M of 1994 
Prem Malhotra for the Appellants. 
K.C. Bajaj for the Respondent. 
The following Order ·of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8.11.1993, relating to the 
alleged dowry death of Smt. Sunita- wife of Anil Kumar, the ieamed · 
Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents 
H 
anr:l the brother of the husband of the deceased Smt. Sunita and directed that 
DOLAT.RAMv, STATEOFHARYANA· 
71 
they be released on ba-il' on their furnishing bail bonds in. the sum of Rs. A 
l 0,000 each with one surety each of the like amount in the event of their 
arrest to the satisfa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.