LexLAVESH versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 469 LAVE SH V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2012) AUGUST 31, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.438 read with s. 82 - Application for anticipatory bail by A B an accused declared as "proclaimed offender" in a case of C dowry death - Held: Normally, court should not exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter - When a person against whom a warrant has been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant D and has been declared as a ''proclaimed offender·: he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail - On facts, the FIR and the statements recorded during investigation indicate that all the family members of husband of deceased including the appellant subjected her to cruelty by demanding a sizable E amount - Even after the appellant was granted interim protection, he did not co-operate with the investigating agency - Considering his conduct not amenable for investigation and his being declared as an absconder, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail - Interim protection granted by the Court F stands vacated. An FIR was registered on the allegations that the appellant's younger brother's wife, a pregnant woman, committed suicide in the matrimonial home as she had been subjected to cruelty by the appellant and his family G members with a view to demand dowry since the date of her marriage, which had taken place 1 year and eight months prior to the date of occurrence. The husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased were arrested on the 469 H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A date of registration of the FIR. The applicant's applications for anticipatory bail having been rejected by the Court of Session as also by the High Court, he filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. While considering the request for anticipatory bail in terms of s.438 CrPC, the court has to take into consideration the nature and the gravity of the accusation, antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice etc. Further, normally, the court should C not exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. [para 6] [474-A-B] 1.2 In the instant case, the matter regarding the 0 unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her in-laws was still under investigation and the appropriate course to adopt was to allow the Magistrate concerned to deal with the same on the basis of the material before the court. The FIR, statements of various persons including the father and the mother of the deceased and E neighbours clearly show that all the family members of the husband of the deceased including the appellant, who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased, subjected her to cruelty by demanding a sizeable amount in order to settle the payment of the ODA flat. [para 6 and F 11] [474-B-C; 475-D-E] 2.1 When a person against whom a warrant has been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and has been declared as G a "proclaimed offender" in terms of s. 82 CrPC, he is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail. The relevant materials and two status reports submitted by the police and the counter affidavit filed in this Court on 25.06.2012, indicate that the appellant has been declared a Proclaimed Offender in the case. [para 9-10] [474-G-H; H 475-A-C] LAVESH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 471 2.2 Even though this Court on 23.03.2012, while A ordering notice, granted interim protection, namely, not to arrest the appellant in connection with FIR No. 259/ 2011, he is said to have not co-operated in the investigation. Considering his conduct not amenable for investigation and, moreover, his being declared as an B absconder, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail as prescribed in s. 438 of the Code. The impugned order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the High Court is confirmed. The interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012 stands vacated. [para 12-16) [475-F-G; 476-B- c C-E-G-H] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2011 of the High D Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1602 of2011. Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Sumit Shar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.