ASHA DUBEY  [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  [RESPONDENT(S)]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4564 OF 2024

(2JB, M.M. SUNDRESH and ARAVIND KUMAR JJ.)

The Supreme Court recently addressed a case involving Asha Dubey, accused in the dowry death and abetment of suicide of her daughter-in-law. Dubey’s son, the deceased woman’s husband, is already in custody, and the prosecution alleged that Dubey was complicit in the harassment leading to the victim’s death. Dubey was charged under Sections 80 (dowry death), 85 (cruelty), 108 (abetment of suicide), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alongside Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court denied Dubey anticipatory bail, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court. She contended her non-involvement in the alleged offenses. The prosecution argued against bail, emphasizing that Dubey had been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which, according to them, barred her from seeking anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court rejected this contention, clarifying that being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC does not automatically preclude consideration for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that Dubey had not been summoned for interrogation by the investigating authorities, suggesting that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Balancing the right to liberty against the nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, the Court concluded that the case warranted anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that Dubey must cooperate with the ongoing investigation and imposed this as a condition for granting bail.

The Court’s decision underscores its approach to safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring justice. It reaffirmed that a mechanical application of procedural provisions should not override the merits of each case. By granting anticipatory bail, the Court considered the specific facts and ensured Dubey’s compliance with further investigation.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, along with advocates Megha Karnwal, Lalit Rajput, Aditya Thorat, and Nakul Chengappa, represented Dubey. Senior Advocate Karuna Nundy, with advocates Ruchira Goel, Rishika Rishabh, and Kanishka Gautam, appeared for the informant, while Additional Advocates General Nachiketa Joshi and DS Parmar represented the State of Madhya Pradesh.

This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach to anticipatory bail, particularly in sensitive cases involving allegations of dowry death and harassment. The ruling balances the accused’s fundamental rights with the need for effective investigation, reflecting the importance of judicial discretion in criminal cases.