Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Sau Vatsalabai Ghanwat, filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Crime No. 171/2011 registered at Police Station, Mehkar for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from the death of Urmila, who allegedly committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The prosecution relied on a dying declaration recorded on 19 November 2011 by a Police Head Constable at Ghati Police Chowky, Aurangabad, wherein the deceased stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. However, the FIR was lodged only on 7 December 2011, more than one month after the incident. The applicant's counsel argued that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that the dying declaration was suspicious, as the deceased had earlier told her relatives that she set herself on fire because her marriage was against her wishes. The court observed that despite the dying declaration, no immediate steps were taken to register the case, which was a serious lapse. The court noted that under Chapter XII of the CrPC, information relating to a cognizable offence must be recorded and investigated promptly. Considering the unexplained delay and the suspicious circumstances, the court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on certain conditions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Delay in FIR - The court considered the unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR and the fact that the dying declaration was recorded by a Head Constable without immediate registration of the case. Held that the applicant made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail (Paras 1-6).
B) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Reliability - The dying declaration was recorded by a Head Constable and the FIR was not registered promptly despite the declaration being received. The court noted the suspicious circumstances and granted bail (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 IPC, given the delay in lodging FIR and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the dying declaration.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on certain conditions.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Dying declaration
- Delay in FIR
- Cognizable offence
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 498A IPC
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (02) 128
Criminal Application (ABA) No. 47 of 2012
Mr R.M. Daga for applicant, Mr S. S. Doifode, APP for respondent-State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving offences of murder and cruelty by husband and in-laws.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Filing Reason
The applicant apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 171/2011 registered for offences under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The court had earlier passed an order dated 7 February 2012 noting the delay in registration of FIR and the suspicious circumstances.
Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the delay in lodging the FIR and the suspicious nature of the dying declaration.
Whether the dying declaration recorded by a Head Constable without immediate registration of the case is reliable.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant's counsel argued that there was a delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR and that the dying declaration was shrouded with suspicion and not reliable. He further contended that relatives of the deceased stated that she had disclosed in the hospital that she set herself on fire because her marriage was against her wishes.
The Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the dying declaration dated 19.11.2011 wherein the deceased stated that her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He submitted that the dying declaration bore the signature of the Head Constable, thumb impression of the deceased, and a certificate of fitness from the Medical Officer.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the dying declaration, including the failure to register the case promptly despite receiving the dying declaration, justified the grant of anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that under Chapter XII of the CrPC, information relating to a cognizable offence must be recorded and investigated without delay.
Judgment Excerpts
Although a serious offence was informed to the police by injured person in the nature of dying declaration, prima facie, it appears that no further steps contemplated in law were taken.
Under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure when information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is given orally to a police officer, he is required to reduce it to writing.
Procedural History
The applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with Crime No. 171/2011 registered at Police Station, Mehkar. The court had earlier passed an order on 7 February 2012 noting the delay in registration of FIR. After hearing both sides, the court granted anticipatory bail on 23 February 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 498A, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 438, 156
