Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: M. P. Thakkar
B. C. Ray
Judgment Date: 1987-01-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Samunder Singh

Respondents

State of Rajasthan
Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Gopal Subramaniam
• A.M. Garg
• R. Venkataramani

Counsels for Respondents

• Dalveer Bhandari

Case Synopsis & Summary

Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Others concerns a High Court order granting anticipatory bail in a dowry-death case. At the relevant time, the matter was under investigation and the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused, despite the gravity and seriousness of the alleged crime. After the father of the deceased filed a special leave appeal, the police concluded the investigation, filed the challan, and the accused were released on bail by the District Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1987, held that the High Court was under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in such a matter, and that the prudent course would be to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the case on the basis of the material available at the time of arrest, to avoid prejudice. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal as infructuous, while issuing a serious note of caution for future practice in such matters, stressing that anticipatory bail should be exercised with circumspection in dowry-death cases. The decision underscores the Court’s insistence on restraint by higher courts in granting anticipatory bail in grave offenses and the need to safeguard the integrity of ongoing investigations while ensuring justice for victims.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Not explicitly detailed in the excerpt; the appeal concerns the High Court’s anticipatory bail order in a dowry-death matter.

Contentions of Respondents

Argue against anticipatory bail, contending that granting bail in such a grave matter could prejudice the ongoing investigation and undermine the interests of justice.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

SAMUNDER SINGH _v._ STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS JANUARY 12, 1987 [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] ' _Code_ _of Criminal Procedure,_ _1973:_ _s._ _438---Aitticipatory_ _bai/-_ _When not lo be granted._ A B # 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 C High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness or the matter. Subsequent to the fillng 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 ball by the D Chief Judicial Magistrate. Dismissing tlie appeal as infructuous, the Court, HELD: The High Court was under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter or this nature. (9800 I E \ The appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned 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 pmdent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion pre- F judice by its very nature and timing. [9808-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1986 of the Rajas- G than 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. 979 H 980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R. ##### A 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 B [matter. ] exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail [We ] [are of the opinion that the High Court should not have ] in \ disregard of the magnitude 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 appropriate regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate 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 i -###### c [of their arrest ][in ] [case they were arrested. ] [It ] [was ] [neither prudent nor ] proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which _-1_ order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise D [its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory 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 observations, the appeal is dismissed. P.S.S. Appeal dismissed. ## "