http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  219 of 2005

PETITIONER: M.P.Lohia                                                        

RESPONDENT: State of West Bengal & Anr.                              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2005

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & S.B.Sinha   

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.991 of 2004) (With Crl.A.Nos 220/05 @ SLP(Crl.) No.1302/04,  & Crl.A.No 221/05 @ SLP(Crl.)No.1829/04)

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

               Heard learned counsel for the parties.

               Leave granted.

       The appellants in these appeals have been charged for  offences punishable under Sections 304B, 406 and 498A read with  Section 34 of the IPC. Their applications for the grant of  anticipatory bail have been rejected by the courts below. Daughter  of the complainant Chandni (since deceased) was married to the  appellant in the third appeal before us. Their marriage took place  on 18th February, 2002. The appellants live in Ludhiana whereas  the complainant and his family are residents of Calcutta. Chandni  committed suicide on 28th of October, 2003 at her parents house in  Calcutta. It is the case of the appellants herein that the deceased  was a schizophrenic psychotic patient with cyclic depression and  was under medical treatment. Though she was living in the  matrimonial home often went to Calcutta to reside with her parents  and she was also being treated by doctors there for the above- mentioned ailments.         While the complaint against the appellants is that they were  not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of wedding and were  harassing the deceased continuously, consequent to which she  developed depression and even though the parents of the deceased  tried to assure the appellants that they would try to meet their   demand of the dowry, the deceased was being treated cruelly at her  matrimonial home and her husband had no love and affection to  her because of which she developed depression.           It has also come on record that the deceased had tried to  commit suicide at the residence of her parents sometime in July,  2002 i.e. about a year earlier than the actual date of her death.  On behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the  defence, large number of documents have been produced to show  that the appellants were demanding dowry because of which the  deceased was depressed and ultimately committed suicide. Per  contra the documents from the side of the defence show that the  relationship between the husband, wife and the in-laws were  cordial and it was only illness of the deceased that was the cause of  her premature death.          One thing is obvious that there has been an attempt on the  part of both the sides to create documents either to establish the  criminal case against the appellants or on the part of the appellants  to create evidence to defend themselves from such criminal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

charges. Correctness or genuineness of this document can only be  gone into in a full-fledged trial and it will not be safe to place  reliance on any one of these documents at this stage. Therefore, we  would venture not to comment on the genuineness of these  documents at this stage. Suffice it to say that this is a matter to be  considered at the trial. In this background the only question for our consideration at  this stage is whether the appellants be granted anticipatory bail or  not.         As stated above, any expression of opinion on the merits of  the case except to the extent of finding out prima facie whether the  appellants are entitled for anticipatory bail or not, would likely to  effect the trial. Therefore, taking into consideration the entire  material available on record without expressing any opinion on the  same, we think it appropriate that the appellants should be released  on bail in the event of their arrest on their furnishing a bail bond of  Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) each and one surety for the like  sum by each appellants to the satisfaction of the Court or the  arresting authority as the case may be. We direct that the appellants  shall abide by the conditions statutorily imposed under Section  438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further direct that in  the event of the investigating agency requiring the presence of the  appellants for the purpose of investigation they be given one  week’s notice and they shall appear before such investigating  agency and their presence at such investigation shall not exceed  two days at a time but such interrogation shall not be a custodial  interrogation. They shall be entitled to have their counsel present at  the time of such interrogation.         Having gone through the records, we find one disturbing   factor which we feel is necessary to comment upon in the interest  of justice. The death of Chandni took place on 28th February, 2002   and the complaint in this regard was registered and the  investigation was in progress. The application for grant of  anticipatory bail was disposed of by the High Court of Calcutta on  13.2.2004 and special leave petition was pending before this Court.  Even then an article has appeared in a magazine called ’Saga’  titled "Doomed by Dowry" written by one Kakoli Poddar based on  her interview of the family of the deceased. Giving version of the  tragedy and extensively quoting the father of the deceased as to his  version of the case. The facts narrated therein are all materials that  may be used in the forthcoming trial in this case and we have no  hesitation that this type of articles appearing in the media would  certainly interfere with the administration of justice. We deprecate  this practice and caution the publisher, editor and the journalist  who was responsible for the said article against indulging in such  trial by media when the issue is subjudiced. However, to prevent  any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat this matter as  closed and hope that the other concerned in journalism would take  note of this displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the  administration of justice.         For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and the  same are allowed.