Doctor Dowry death in UP: SC cancels anticipatory bail of husband doctor family

Written by Sanchari Chattopadhyay Published On 2020-12-21T09:30:15+05:30 | Updated On 21 Dec 2020 6:10 PM IST

Doctor Dowry death in UP: SC cancels anticipatory bail of husband doctor family

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has canceled the anticipatory bail granted to an eminent doctor and his family by the Allahabad High Court after the medical practitioner's doctor wife died an unnatural death allegedly due to ill-treatment and violence by her husband and in-laws for dowry.

Besides the cancellation, the apex court has also directed an independent probe by CBI in the case.

The order by the apex court was pronounced while dealing with a petition moved by the deceased doctor's father who alleged domestic violence that resulted in the subsequent death of his daughter. The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the High court to the deceased doctor's father-in-law, mother-in-law, another doctor son, and his wife for allegedly torturing the deceased in order to gain more dowry.

The complaint was moved by the deceased doctor's father on 7 August 2020 on the basis of an FIR that was registered at Police Station Tajganj in the District of Agra.

According to the FIR, his daughter got married to the son of the accused doctor on 3 November 2014. The deceased herself was a qualified doctor by profession. An amount of Rs.1.5 crores was spent on the occasion of her marriage. However, the in-laws were allegedly dissatisfied with the money brought by the bride and she was pressurized to bring an amount of Rs. 1 crore. Further, the deceased's father allegedly paid money by cheque to the groom's family in the interest of the domestic happiness of his daughter.

The petitioner mentioned an incident in 2017 when the deceased was allegedly assaulted by her in-laws. Injuries were suffered by her, as revealed during the course of a medical examination at the Government Hospital in Vrindavan. The deceased suffered two miscarriages and had adopted a girl child. There was continued harassment of the deceased and of the child she had adopted. About 18 or 19 days before the incident on 3 August 2020, the deceased had been assaulted by the accused persons on account of dowry and threatened with consequences if she informed her family.

Also Read: Allopathy Doctors reach Supreme Court challenging PG Ayurveda Doctors performing surgeries order

The petitioner further claimed that there was a telephone call on 3 August 2020 by the deceased doctor's father-in-law demanding money and threatening him with consequences. The same day, her daughter had made telephone calls at 3:09 PM and at 5:31 PM to her parents when she revealed being assaulted in the recent past and of the threat to her life.

By the time the petitioner traveled from Faridabad to Agra he found that his daughter had been allegedly killed for non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry. The petitioner moved the deceased to Sarvodaya hospital at Faridabad for treatment where she died on 6 August 2020.

The FIR was lodged after the last rites were performed. It was alleged that the accused doctor and his family had taken possession of the money which was earned by her and she was killed for dowry.

The deceased doctor's husband was taken into custody on 7 August 2020. A couple of days later, the four accused sought anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Agra. However, the Sessions Judge, Agra declined anticipatory bail and on 9 September 2020, non-bailable warrants were issued against the four accused. Thereafter, applications for anticipatory bail were filed on their behalf before the High Court.

The high court granted the bail stating "The FIR prima facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants", "there is no correlation in between the various allegations leveled in the FIR", and the allegations "are general in nature" with no specific role being assigned to the accused. After this, the father of the deceased doctor approached the apex court and appealed for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Considering the submission of both the parties and the orders of the session court and the high court, the bench observed that such an incident, as reported by the deceased to the police on October 1, 2017, did take place, leading to her suffering injuries which were examined at the Government Hospital is a matter of investigation.

The apex court further remarked," how the learned Single Judge could have concluded – in the face of specific allegations in the FIR and the reference by the Sessions Judge to money transactions - that the FIR prima facie has been "engineered to implicate the accused" defies reasonable explanation."

Asserting that the High court has taken a decision without relying on a thorough investigation, the apex court observed," The approach of the High Court is casual. The surmises which are contained in the reasons recorded by the High Court have no basis in the materials with which it was confronted. The observation of the High Court that no specific role is assigned in the FIR to the accused is based on a misreading of the FIR. The entire approach of the High Court is flawed."

The court further added, "Judged in the light of the above principles, the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is unsustainable. The FIR contains a recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment of money by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased."

Deliberating the investigation done so far, the court stated, " the investigation by the UP Police in the present case leaves much to be desired. We have already extracted in the earlier part of this judgment, the contents of the counter affidavit which have been filed on behalf of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Agra."

Criticizing the selective disclosure of media, the court observed, " within a couple of days of the death of doctor, the alleged suicide note found its way into the newspapers in Agra. This is in fact a circumstance relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused when they submit that despite the publicity given to the suicide note, the FIR does not impugn its authenticity." It noted;

" The investigating officer has a duty to investigate when information about the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to their attention. Unfortunately, this role is being compromised by the manner in which selective leaks take place in the public realm. This is not fair to the accused because it pulls the rug below the presumption of innocence. It is not fair to the victims of crime, if they have survived the crime, and where they have not, to their families. Neither the victims nor their families have a platform to answer the publication of lurid details about their lives and circumstances."

The apex court while rejecting the insinuation that the FIR had not doubted or referenced the suicide note, despite its publication in the news media, finally canceled the bail plea and held;

"The order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the applications for anticipatory bail by the respondents-accused shall stand set aside and the bail granted to them shall stand canceled"

Further, the court considered the petitioner's request for an independent probe and stated;

Having regard to the circumstances which have emerged on the record, which have been adverted to in the earlier part of the judgment, we are of the view that it is necessary to entrust a further investigation of the case to the CBI in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-144424.pdf

Allahabad High Courtsupreme courtdomestic violenceanticipatory baildoctor deathdowrydoctor arresteddoctor killedup doctor

Sanchari Chattopadhyay

Sanchari Chattopadhyay has pursued her M.A in English and Culture Studies from the University of Burdwan, West Bengal. She likes observing cultural specificities and exploring new places.