VIPAN KUMAR DHIR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1137 · Decided: 04-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1137
1137
VIPAN KUMAR DHIR
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1161 – 1162 of 2021)
OCTOBER 04, 2021
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Bail – Dowry death alleged – Respondent no.2-accused, the
mother-in- law of the deceased charged u/ss.304B, 302 r/w 120B –
Anticipatory bail granted – Held: Offence alleged in the instant
case is heinous – High Court swayed by the fact that the accused
was co-operating with investigation – However, this is contrary to
the record as she remained absconding for more than two years
after being declared a proclaimed offender – She chose to join
investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court –
Further, ground of parity with co-accused, her younger son (brother-
in-law of the deceased) invoked by the High Court is unwarranted
– Allegations in the FIR against her and her younger son are
materially different – Impugned order set aside – Penal Code, 1860
– ss.304B, 302 r/w s.120B.
Bail – Cancellation of vis-a-vis grant of – Distinction –
Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different
footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is
necessary that ‘cogent and overwhelming reasons’ are present
for the cancellation of bail. Conventionally, there can be
supervening circumstances which may develop post the grant of
bail and are non-conducive to fair trial, making it necessary to
cancel the bail. Bail can also be revoked where the court has
considered irrelevant factors or has ignored relevant material
available on record which renders the order granting bail legally
untenable. The gravity of the offence, conduct of the accused and
societal impact of an undue indulgence by Court when the
investigation is at the threshold, are also amongst a few situations,
where a Superior Court can interfere in an order of bail to prevent
the miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
criminal justice system. While granting bail, especially anticipatory
bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the
accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family
members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other
impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked.
Each case has its own unique factual scenario which holds the
key for adjudication of bail matters including cancellation thereof.
The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous. In the case in
hand, the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by
the fact that the Accused was ‘co operating’ with investigation.
This is, however, contrary to the record as the Accused remained
absconding for more than two years after being declared a
proclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. She chose to join
investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court.
She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as
Magistrate’s Court till she got protection against arrest from the
High Court in the 2nd round of bail proceedings. The ground of
parity with co-accused, her younger son (brother-in-law of the
deceased) invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted.
The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent-Mother-in-
Law and her younger son are materially different.
It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the
family members are common but there are other specific
allegations accusing the Accused of playing a key role in the
alleged offence. The High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit
of parity in favour of the Accused. The impugned order of
the High Court is set aside. The Accused is directed to surrender
before the Trial Court. [Paras 9-12, 14 and 16][1141-B-C;
1142-A-D, E-F, G-H; 1143-A, B, F]
Daulat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1
SCC 349 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; X vs. State of
Telegana (2018) 16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69
relied on
Para 9
[2018] 4 SCR 466
relied on
Para 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos.1161-1162 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2021 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-22197-2020 (O&M)
and CRM-M-23495-2020 (O&M).
Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., S. S. Nehra, Arun Dagar, Vikrant
Nehra, R. K. Gupta, H. S. Sachdeva, Rajendra Verma, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Sunil Chadh

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