LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

SAMUNDER SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 12-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SAMUNDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS 
JANUARY 12, 1987 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
' Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438---Aitticipatory bai/-
When not lo be granted. 
A 
B 
While the matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughterΒ· 
in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation the C 
High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in disregard of the 
magnitude and seriousness or the matter. 
Subsequent to the fillng of the appeal by special leave by the 
father of the deceased the investigation had been concluded by the 
police and challan filed, and the accused were released on ball by the 
D 
Chief Judicial Magistrate. 
Dismissing tlie appeal as infructuous, the Court, 
HELD: The High Court was under no compulsion to exercise its 
jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter or this nature. (9800 I 
E 
\ 
The appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned 
Magistrate to deal with the case on the basis of the material before him 
at the point of time of accused's arrest in case they were arrested. It 
was, therefore, neither pmdent nor proper for the High Court to have 
granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion pre-
F 
judice by its very nature and timing. [9808-D] 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 22 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1986 of the Rajas-
G 
than High Court in Crl. M.B.A. No. 1395/86 
Gopal Subramaniam, A.M. Garg and R. Venkataramani for the 
Petitioner. 
Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondents. 
979 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
... 
THAKKAR, J. The widespread belief that dowry deaths are 
even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well 
grounded. The High Court has granted anticipatory bail in such a 
B matter. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have 
\ 
exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in 
disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. The matter 
regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of 
her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate 
i 
course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the 
--
same on the basis of the material before the Court at the point of time 
c of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor 
proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which 
-1 
order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and 
timing. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of 
caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise 
D its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature. So 
far as the present matter is concerned, since it has become infructuous, 
we do not propose to pass any order. Subject to these observations, 
the appeal is dismissed. 
P.S.S. 
Appeal dismissed. 
"