Gravity of offence, conduct of accused and societal impact factors for interference with bail order: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday, held that an order of bail can be revoked by a superior court on consideration of circumstances such as the gravity of offence, conduct of accused and societal impact of such undue indulgence (Vipan Kumar Dhir vs. State of Punjab).A Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli held that a bail order can be interfered with to prevent miscarriage of justice and to bolster the administration of the 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,” the Court said..The observation came in an appeal against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting anticipatory bail to the mother-in-law (respondent) of the deceased in a dowry death case.The respondent had been on the run for two years and continued to evade arrest until her younger son and co-accused were granted anticipatory bail, soon after which she moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that she had joined the investigation and was entitled to seek parity with the co-accused, whom the Court had granted bail..However, the complainant was aggrieved by this order and therefore, moved the Supreme Court. It was argued that the High Court committed a grave error of law and overlooked well-established principles of law..Before making any observation, the three judge Bench recapitulated that cancellation of bail is to be dealt with on a different footing than grant of bail, observing that “cogent and overwhelming reasons” were necessary for cancellation.The Court discussed the judgement in Daulat Ram vs. State of Haryana in which it was observed that “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 Bench also specifically observed that the offence alleged in the present case was heinous and protruded the medieval social structure which wails for reform despite multiple efforts by the legislature and judiciary.“While it is too early to term it an offence under Sections 302 or 304B IPC, 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 Court said..Therefore, it was found that in light of the respondent’s conduct of absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason and the specific allegations against her in playing a key role for commission of the offences, she was on a starkly different pedestal than the co-accused with whom she sought parity..“We set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated January 28, 2021 and direct the respondent-accused to surrender before the trial court within a period of one week," said the Bench..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.