SAVITRI AGARWAL & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 10-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 978 
SAVITRI AGARWAL & ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1178-1179 of 2009) 
JULY 10, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s. 438 -
Anticipatory bail - Accusation of committing offence ulss. 
C 498-A, 304-8134 /PC and ss. 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act 
- Grant of anticipatory bail by Sessions Court - Cancellation 
of, by High Court - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable 
-Sessions Judge passed a reasoned order after due 
consideration of facts and circumstances of the case - High 
o Court overlooked the distinction of factors relevant for 
rejecting bail in non-bailable case in the first instance and 
cancellation of bail already granted -
Very cogent and 
overwhelming circumstances are necessary fqr an order 
directing cancellation of bail already granted - No complaint 
E against accused that they did not co-operate with the 
investigation or misused anticipatory bail granted to them -
Order of Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to accused 
restored. 
Appellants were accused of having committed 
F 
offence u/ss. 498A, 3048 r/w s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of 
the Dowry Prohibition Act. They applied for grant of 
anticipatory bail. The Sessions Judge granted the same 
u/s. 438 Cr.P.C. It considered the dying declaration 
recorded by Executive Magistrate where the deceased 
G had not leveled any allegation against the appellants for 
demanding any dowry or for torturing her for any other 
purpose. Respondent-State and the complainant filed 
application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted 
H 
to the appellant. High Court allowed the same. Hence the 
978 
j .. 
-
• 
' : 
SAVITRI AGARWAL & ORS. v . . STATE OF 
979 
MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
present appeals. 
A 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the High Court 
committed a serious error in reversing the order passed 
by the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory 
B 
bail to the appellants. The Sessions Judge passed the 
order after due consideration of the facts and 
circumstances of the case, in particular, the two dying 
· declarations, one recorded in the presence of the parents 
of the deceased and the statements of the members of C 
. the Women Cell who had dealt with the case when on 
15th July, 2006, the deceased had left the house with 
intention to commit suicide and therefore, it cannot be 
said that the judicial discretion exercised 1n granting 
anticipatory bail was perverse or erroneous, warranting 
D 
, interference by the High Court. The order passed by the 
Sessions Judge was supported by reasons to the extent 
required for exercise of judicial discretion in the matter 
of grant of bail. It may be true that some of the 
circumstances, noticed by the High Court in the 
E 
impugned order, viz., no reference to lantern in the spot 
panchnama or the necessity of cleaning the lantern at 4 
. p.m. and/or availability of an inverter in the house etc., 
could have persuaded the Sessions Judge to take a 
different view but it cannot be said that the factors which 
weighed with the Sessions Judge in granting ba~ were . 
irrelevant to the issue before him, rendering the _order: as 
' 
. 
.,...,_ 
perverse. Moreover, merely because the High Court had 
F 
a different view on same set of material which had been 
taken into consideration by the Sessions Judge, was not G 
a valid ground to label the order passed by the Sessions 
Judge as perverse. [Para 20] [993-A-F] 
1.2. High Court overlooked the distinction of factors 
relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 
Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are 
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail 
already granted, which, were missing in the instant case. 
Nothing was brought to the notice from which it could be 
B inferred that the appellants have not co-operated in the 
investigations or have, in any manner, abused the 
concession of bail granted to them. As a matter of fact, 
counsel representing the State, stated that after grant of 
anticipatory bail to the appellants, no investigation in the 
c case has been conducted. [Paras 21] [993-F-H; 994-A-C] 
1.3. The impugned order setting aside the 
anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the 
Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be sustained and is 
set aside. The order passed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.