2021 INSC 0601
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1161­1162   OF 2021
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NOS. 5404­5405 OF 2021)
Vipan Kumar Dhir
..... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondent(s)
                                                    
             
JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2. The challenge laid is to an order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby anticipatory bail has been
granted   to   Respondent   No.2   (hereafter   ‘Respondent­Accused’),   who   is
the   mother­in­law   of   the   deceased   and   is   charged   under   Sections
304B, 302 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). 
3. The   prosecution   version   in   brief   is   that   the   appellant   (hereafter
‘Complainant’), who is the father of the deceased, lodged an FIR dated
02.10.2017 against 7 accused persons, 4 of whom are members of the
in­laws family of the deceased including the Respondent­Accused. The
Page  |  1

Complainant has alleged that his daughter was married to the son of
Respondent­accused   on   28­07­2017.     Soon   thereafter,   the   accused
family members started to harass and physically torture the deceased
on   the   pretext   of   dowry   demands.   His   daughter   died   an   unnatural
death on 02­10­2017 in suspicious circumstances.   There are specific
allegations   vis­a­vis   Respondent­Accused   alleging   that   she   exploited
the   deceased   and   deprived   her   of   any   chance   to   recuperate   from   the
arduous domestic chores. This was despite the fact that deceased was
also working as a full­time lecturer in the local government college. It
was further alleged that due to non­fulfilment of the dowry demands,
the vicious cycle of humiliation and abuse continued to be meted out
to   the   deceased.   The   deceased   contacted   the   Complainant   on
30­09­2017 and informed that she had been again physically tortured
because of her failure to meet their dowry demands. The Complainant
assured that he would try to amicably settle this household squabble
by   coming   to   her   marital   home   on   the   very   next   day.   However,   this
assurance   could   never   be   materialised   as   the   accused   are   alleged   to
have   clandestinely   administered   poison   to   the   deceased   on
01.10.2017,   which   led   to   her   unfortunate   demise   the   following
morning. It is to be noted that the factum of poisoning is supported by
medical evidence gathered by the Investigating Agency.
Page  |  2

4. Soon   after   the   FIR   was   lodged,   the   Respondent­Accused   moved
an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, which was
rejected   on   21.12.2017.   Discontented,   the   Respondent­Accused
approached   the   High   Court   for   a   similar   relief,   but   the   petition   was
dismissed   as   withdrawn   on   08.03.2018.   Meanwhile,   on   account   of
non­cooperation   with   the   ongoing   investigation,   the   SHO   of   the
concerned   police   station   applied   for   and   got   issued   arrest   warrants
against   the   Respondent­Accused   from   Judicial   Magistrate.   However,
the  arrest warrant could  not be executed  as the  Respondent­Accused
had been on the run and she was thus declared an absconder on 23­
04­2018   under   Section   82   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   (for
short, “Cr.P.C.”). 
5. The Respondent­Accused continued to evade her arrest until this
Court   granted   anticipatory   bail   to   her   younger   son   Daksh   Adya
(brother­in­law   of   the   deceased)   on   22.10.2019.   Thereafter,   taking
advantage   of   this   subsequent   event   and   presenting   the   same   as   a
material   change   in   circumstance,   Respondent­Accused   filed   two
petitions   before   the   High   Court,   seeking   quashing   of   the   order   that
declared   her   a   ‘proclaimed   offender’   and   further   sought   the   relief   of
anticipatory bail. 
Page  |  3

6. It   is   noted   explicitly   that   during   the   pendency   of   the   above­
mentioned   proceedings,   the   High   Court   granted   interim   bail   to   the
Respondent­Accused on 03.12.2020 and pursuant thereto, she joined
the investigation on 07.12.2020. Thereafter, vide the impugned order,
High   Court   allowed   both   the   petitions   and   set   aside   the   order
declaring   the   Respondent­Accused   as   an   absconder   and   also   granted
her   anticipatory   bail.   These   reliefs   were   primarily   allowed   on   two
grounds   ­   firstly   that   the   Respondent­Accused   had   joined   the
investigation   and   undertook   to   remain   present   at   each   date   of   trial
proceedings;   secondly   she   was   entitled   to   seek   parity   with   the   co­
accused Daksh Adya whom this Court granted anticipatory bail. 
7. The   aggrieved   Complainant   is   before   us,   contending   inter­alia,
that the High Court has committed a grave error of law in over­looking
the   well­established   principles   which   guide   courts   to   exercise   their
discretion   in   the   matter   of   granting   anticipatory   bail.   Learned   State
Counsel has also supported the cause of Appellant­Complainant.
8. We   have   heard   Learned   Counsel   for   the   parties   at   length   and
perused the relevant material placed on record.
9. At the outset, it would be fruitful to recapitulate the well­settled
legal principle that the cancellation of bail is to be dealt on a different
footing in comparison to a proceeding for grant of bail. It is necessary
Page  |  4

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.   This
Court   in   Daulat   Ram   and   others   vs.   State   of   Haryana 1
  observed
that:
“ Rejection   of   bail   in   a   non­bailable   case   at   the   initial
stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to
be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very
cogent   and   overwhelming   circumstances   are
necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the
bail,   already   granted.   Generally   speaking,   the
grounds   for   cancellation   of   bail,   broadly   (illustrative
and   not   exhaustive)   are:   interference   or   attempt   to
interfere   with   the   due   course   of   administration   of
Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course
of   justice   or   abuse   of   the   concession   granted   to   the
accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,
on   the   basis   of   material   placed   on   the   record   of
the   possibility   of   the   accused   absconding   is   yet
another   reason   justifying   the   cancellation   of   bail .
However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in
a   mechanical   manner   without   considering   whether
any   supervening   circumstances   have   rendered   it   no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to
retain   his   freedom   by   enjoying   the   concession   of   bail
during the trial.”
  These   principles   have   been   reiterated   time   and   again,   more
recently by a 3­judge Bench of this Court in  X vs. State of Telegana
and Another . 2
1
  (1995) 1 SCC 349 at ¶ 4.
2
  (2018) 16 SCC 511 at  ¶ 14­15.
Page  |  5

10. In  addition  to  the caveat illustrated in  the  cited  decision(s), 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   criminal   justice   system.     This   Court   has   repeatedly   viewed   that
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. 
11. Broadly speaking, 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
and   protrudes   our   medieval   social   structure   which   still   wails   for
reforms   despite   multiple   efforts   made   by   Legislation   and   Judiciary.    
12. In   the   case   in   hand,   the   High   Court   seems   to   have   been
primarily   swayed   by   the   fact   that   the   Respondent­Accused   was   ‘co­
Page  |  6

operating’   with   investigation.   This   is,   however,   contrary   to   the   record
as   the   Respondent­Accused   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 2 nd
 round of bail proceedings.
13. Even   if   there   was   any   procedural   irregularity   in   declaring   the
Respondent­Accused   as   an   absconder,   that   by   itself   was   not   a
justifiable   ground   to   grant   pre­arrest   bail   in   a   case   of   grave   offence
save where the High Court on perusal of case­diary and other material
on   record   is,   prima   facie,   satisfied   that   it   is   a   case   of   false   or   over­
exaggerated accusation.  Such being not the case here, the High Court
went   on   a   wrong   premise   in   granting   anticipatory   bail   to   the
Respondent­Accused.
14. The ground of parity with co­accused Daksh Adya invoked by the
High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against
the   Respondent­Mother­in­Law   and   her   younger   son   Daksh   Adya  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 Respondent­Accused of playing a key
role in the alleged offence. The conduct of the Respondent­Accused in
Page  |  7

absconding   for   more   than   two   years   without   any   justifiable   reason
should   have   weighed   in   mind   while   granting   her   any   discretionary
relief. These facts put her on a starkly different pedestal than the co­
accused with whom she seeks parity. We are, thus, of the considered
view that the High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in
favour   of   the   Respondent­Accused.       It   has   to   be   borne   in   mind   that
the   deceased   met   with   a   tragic   end   within   three   months   of   her
marriage. While it is too early to term it an offence under Sections 302
or   304B   I.P.C.,   but   the   fact   remains   that   a   young   life   came   to   an
abrupt   end   before   realizing   any   of   her   dreams   which   were   grimly
shattered.     She   died   an   unnatural   death   in   her   matrimonial   home.
The   Respondent­Accused   is   the   mother­in­law   of   the   deceased.     The
Investigating Agency, therefore, deserves a free hand to investigate the
role of the Respondent­Accused, if any, in the unnatural and untimely
death of her daughter in­law.
15. Learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   Respondent­Accused   may   be
right   in   contending   that   the   Appellant­Complainant   has   widened   the
net and included even other than the family members of the in­laws of
the   deceased.     According   to   him,   the   entire   version   of   the   Appellant­
Complainant should be seen with suspicious eyes as he being a retired
District   Attorney,   has   a   legally   trained   mind.   We   do   not   deem   it
necessary   to   comment   upon   this   contention   at   this   stage.     Suffice   to
Page  |  8

mention that the needle of suspicion revolves around only against the
Respondent­Accused   and   her   family   members   while   at   this   stage   the
others have been found innocent by the investigating agency. 
16. In   light   of   the   above   discussion   and   without   expressing   any
views   on   merit,   we   set   aside   the   impugned   order   of   the   High   Court
dated   28.01.2021   and   direct   the   Respondent­Accused   to   surrender
before   the   Trial   Court   within   a   period   of   one   week.   We   make   it   clear
that the observations made herein above are limited for  the  purposes
of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on
the   merits   of   the   case.   We   also   clarify   that   after   the   surrender,   the
Respondent­Accused   will   be   free   to   seek   regular   bail   before   the
concerned   Trial   Court   and   any   such   prayer   shall   be   decided   as   per
law, without being influenced by this order.  
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
..…………………….. CJI.
(N.V. RAMANA)
……… ..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
……… ..………………… J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 04.10.2021
Page  |  9