Balwant Singh son of Sh. Pehal Singh  [Petitioner(s)] Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir  [ Respondent(s)]

OWP No.498/2010

(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE)

The Supreme Court recently heard a significant case involving Asha Dubey, accused of dowry death and abetment of her daughter-in-law’s suicide. Dubey’s son, the deceased woman’s husband, was already in custody. The prosecution alleged that Dubey, along with her son, harassed the victim, contributing to her death. Dubey faced charges under Sections 80 (dowry death), 85 (cruelty), 108 (abetment of suicide), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Apprehending arrest, she sought anticipatory bail from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was denied. She subsequently approached the Supreme Court, maintaining her innocence and denying involvement in the alleged offenses.

The prosecution opposed her plea, arguing that Dubey was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and was therefore ineligible for anticipatory bail. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, clarifying that a declaration under Section 82 CrPC does not automatically disqualify an accused from seeking anticipatory bail. The Court observed that Dubey had not been summoned for interrogation by the investigating authorities, indicating that her custodial interrogation was unnecessary. While balancing the appellant’s liberty against the severity of the allegations, the Court emphasized the need to examine the specific circumstances of the case.

“When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued,” the Court noted. It found Dubey’s case fit for anticipatory bail, with the condition that she fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The decision underscores the judiciary’s careful consideration of individual rights and procedural safeguards in criminal cases. By granting anticipatory bail, the Court emphasized the principle that procedural declarations, such as being named a proclaimed offender, should not overshadow an accused’s fundamental rights, particularly in the absence of custodial requirements.

The case also highlights the judicial scrutiny applied to cases involving allegations of dowry-related harassment and deaths. The Court’s ruling reflects a balance between ensuring justice for the victim and protecting the accused from unwarranted deprivation of liberty.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, supported by advocates Megha Karnwal, Lalit Rajput, Aditya Thorat, and Nakul Chengappa, represented Dubey. Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, along with advocates Ruchira Goel, Rishika Rishabh, and Kanishka Gautam, appeared for the informant. Additional Advocates General Nachiketa Joshi and DS Parmar represented the State of Madhya Pradesh. This ruling underscores the importance of judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail, particularly in sensitive cases. It reaffirms that courts must weigh the circumstances and ensure a fair balance between the rights of the accused and the need for justice, ensuring a just and transparent process.