PETITIONER:
SAMUNDER SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1987
BENCH:
THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
BENCH:
THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 737 1987 SCR (1) 979
1987 SCC (1) 466 JT 1987 (1) 141
1987 SCALE (1)66
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438--Anticipatory
bail--When not to be granted.
HEADNOTE:
While the matter regarding the unnatural death of the
daughter in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still
under investigation the High Court grunted anticipatory bail
to the accused in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness
of the matter.
Subsequent to the filing of the appeal by special leave
by the father of the deceased the investigation had been
concluded by the police and challan filed, and the accused
were released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Dismissing the appeal as infructuous, the Court,
HELD: The High Court was under no compulsion to exercise
its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of
this nature. [980D]
The appropriate course to adopt was to allow the con-
cerned Magistrate to deal with the case on the basis of the
material before him at the point of time of accused's arrest
in case they were arrested. It was, therefore, neither
prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted antic-
ipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion preju-
dice by its very nature and timing. [980B-D]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 22 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1986 of the
Rajasthan High Court in Crl. M.B.A. No. 1395/86
Gopal Subramaniam, A.M. Garg and R. Venkataramani for
the Petitioner.
Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondents.
980
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THAKKAR, J. 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 magni-
tude 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 appro-
priate 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 seri-
ous note of caution for future. The High Court is under no
compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipato-
ry 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 observa-
tions, the appeal is dismissed.
P.S.S. Appeal
dismissed.
981
