DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA versus SMT. ANITA AGARWAL & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 14 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 17-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
   [2020] 14 S.C.R. 294
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA
 v.
SMT. ANITA AGARWAL & ORS. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 872-873 of 2020)
DECEMBER 17, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA  AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Anticipatory Bail
– Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498-A,
304-B, 323, 506 and 313 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3 and
4 – Appellant’s daughter died an unnatural death – According to
the respondent-accused persons she committed suicide – However,
in the FIR lodged by the appellant it was alleged that his deceased
daughter was pressurized to bring money and the appellant had
paid money on several occasions by cheque to the in-laws
(respondent-accused) of the deceased – The Session Judge observed
that an incident took place on 01.10.2017 when deceased was
allegedly assaulted by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-
in-law which led to the filing of a complaint in the police station –
The FIR further records that father-in-law of the deceased had
telephonically threatened appellant on 03.08.2020 and demanded
money – The same day appellant’s daughter had informed appellant
that there was threat to her life – However, before appellant could
reach his daughter’s matrimonial house to see her, he was informed
that she was admitted in hospital – After few days in hospital, she
died – The applications for anticipatory bail u/s.438 Cr.P.C. was
filed by parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
deceased – Deceased’s husband was in custody – The said
applications were dismissed by the Sessions Judge referring to the
money transactions – The Single Judge of the High Court granted
the anticipatory bail to the applicants and held that (a) FIR prima
facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants; (b) there
is no co-relation between the various allegations leveled in the FIR;
(c) the allegations ‘are general in nature’ with no specific role being
assigned to the accused – On appeal, held: The FIR contains a
recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in
294
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment
of moneys by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased – The FIR even
referred to the telephone calls which were received from the father-
in-law of the deceased – In the face of such specific allegations in
the FIR and the reference by the Session Judge to the money
transaction, the conclusion of the Single Judge of the High Court
that the FIR prima facie has been ‘engineered to implicate the
accused’ defies reasonable explanation – Similar is the case with
the finding that ‘there is no co-relation between the allegations
leveled in the FIR’ – A reading of the FIR would reveal that the
finding of the Single Judge that the allegations ‘are general without
assigning a specific role to the accused’ is contrary to the record –
The entire approach of the High Court is flawed – The grant of
anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct
the investigation – Therefore, the orders passed by the Single Judge
of the High Court allowing the applications for anticipatory bail
are set aside and bail granted to the accused persons is cancelled.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Transfer of further
investigation to CBI – Penal Code, 1860 – s.364-B – Dowry death
– Appellant’s daughter died an unnatural death – According to the
respondent-accused persons, she committed suicide – It was alleged
in the FIR that appellant’s daughter-deceased was pressurized to
bring money – There were prior allegations of assault against the
accused persons/in-laws of appellant’s daughter – The application
for anticipatory bail filed by the in-laws of appellant’s daughter
was rejected by the Session Judge – However, applications were
allowed by the High Court – Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted
– Before the Supreme Court, the State filed counter-affidavit through
Deputy Superintendent of Police and stated that the High Court
has not taken into consideration the prior allegations of assault/
injuries sustained by deceased in the year 2017 – It was further
stated that the medical reports and facts revealed that deceased
was killed – The State supported the appellant in assailing the
correctness of the order granting anticipatory bail – According to
the State no investigation on allegation of murder was conducted –
Held: The c

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