Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DOLAT RAM AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Decided
24 November 1994
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, M.K. MUKHERJEE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 69 · 1994 INSC 548
Also cited as
  • (1995) 1 SCC 349 (106 citing judgments)
  • (1995) SCC(CRI) 237 (48 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0547/1995 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 22 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 70, margin G

In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8.11.1993, relating to the alleged dowry death of Smt. Sunita- wife of Anil Kumar, the ieamed · Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents anr:l the brother of the husband of the deceased Smt. Sunita and directed that they be released on ba-il' on their furnishing bail bonds in. the sum of Rs. l 0,000 each with one surety each of the like amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been gran~ed to the husband - Anil Kumar. The State ofHaryana filed a·pe~ition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of the anticipat~ry bail, granted· to the. appellants by the Additi~nal Sessions Judge, Rohtak on November 12, 1993.' The learned Single Judge of the High Court by its order dated 8.9.1994, cancelled the bail observing;

pp. 70–71, margin G

.. "Dowry de~th is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No positive finding has be.en recorded by the Addi. Sessions Judge in. his. order to the effect that the respondents and th~ deceased were Iiv'ing separately. No prima-fai:i~ case is made out which '?ould justify the grant of anticipatory bail. To my view of thinking, concession of anticipatory bail granted by the Addi. Sessioris Judge, was totally uncalled for .. The order dated November 12, 1993 is, there(.ore; setaside

p. 71, margin B

and the respondents are directed to be taken into ~ustody."

p. 71, margin C

The appellants ate aggrieved of the cancellation of the anticipatory bail~ granted to them. Hence this appeal.

p. 71, margin D

It appears to us that whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in observing in the last paragraph of his order while granting' antfoipatory bail "it appears that possibly these accused~applicants have been roped in falsely", at that initial stage, when·pos!>ibly the investigation was not even completed let alone, any evidence had been led at·the trial, the · High Court also fell in error in cancell~g the anticipatory bail granted to · the appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us above The learned Ad~itional Sessions Judge had ·noticed .t~at even according to the . statement m the FIR, the. appellants were hvmg separate.ly from the . deceased· and her husband and that the factum of separate residence was · · also supported by the ration card. These considerations were relevant c.onsiderations for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatozy bail.

p. 71, margin D

Rejection of bail m a non-bailable case at the· initial stage and the · cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with .on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circurnstances arenece.ssary for an· order cjirecting the cancellation· of .the bail, already granted. G~neraily speaking, the grounds for · cancellation of· bail, ·broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive} are : interference or attempt to. interfere with the due cours~ 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 satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.

pp. 71–72, margin E

We are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, for the reasons given by the High Court, was not justified. Nothing has been brought to our notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the intervening period.

p. 72, margin C

We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12th November, 1993. A.G. Appeal allowed.

p. 72, margin D