Samunder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan And Others.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1987
(Arising Out of SPL. Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 3315 of 1986)
(Arising Out of SPL. Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 3315 of 1986)
Petitioner: Samunder Singh
Respondent: State of Rajasthan And Others.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No.22 of 1987
(Arising Out of SPL. Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 3315 of 1986)
(Arising Out of SPL. Leave Petition(Criminal) No. 3315 of 1986)
Judges: M.P.THAKKAR & B.C.RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 12, 1987
Head Note:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL:
Dowry deaths – The matter regarding the unnatural death of daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law under investigation – 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 order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing.
JUDGEMENT:
THAKKAR,J:
1. 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 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 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 of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which 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 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.
1. 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 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 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 of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which 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 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.
