New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment granting anticipatory bail to a mother-in-law accused in a dowry-related case while making important observations about the rights of proclaimed offenders to seek anticipatory bail.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar heard the case involving an anticipatory bail application under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Supreme Court Highlights Key Legal Aspects of Anticipatory Bail for Proclaimed Offenders
The court’s examination revealed that the appellant, Asha Dubey, was the mother-in-law of the deceased, and her son had already been arrested and remained in custody. The case presented a crucial question: does being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) bar an accused from seeking anticipatory bail?
Addressing this significant legal question, the court observed, “Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail.”
Asha Dubey Case: Custodial Interrogation Not Necessary, Rules Apex Court
The bench further emphasized the importance of considering individual circumstances, stating, “When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against [the circumstances], 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 prosecution’s arguments regarding non-cooperation were directly addressed by the court, which noted, “It is incorrect to state that pursuant to the interim protection granted, the appellant was not cooperating in the investigation.” The court highlighted that despite the appellant’s communications with investigating authorities, she had not been called to join the investigation.
In its final determination, the Supreme Court concluded that custodial interrogation of the appellant was not necessary. The court set aside the High Court’s order and granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.
The court, however, maintained a balanced approach by noting that the respondents could seek cancellation of bail if conditions were violated or if there were any perceived threats against witnesses.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the accused-appellant, along with AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal and other advocates.
Senior Advocate Ms. Karuna Nundy appeared for the respondents, supported by various other legal representatives, including the Additional Advocate General.
Case title: Asha Dubey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
