Elderly women not automatically entitled to anticipatory bail: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that benefit of provision allowing for leniency in grant of bail to a woman, sick or infirm persons cannot be extended will not apply to anticipatory bail [Sushma vs. State Nct of Delhi].

Justice Amit Mahajan made the observation while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of a 60-year-old woman in a case of dowry death, observing that the elderly woman was not automatically entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail

"Even otherwise, the protection under Section 437 of the CrPC is not absolute and is subject to the nature and gravity of the offence. In this case, where the applicant is alleged to be directly involved in the incessant demands of dowry and harassment of the deceased, the mere fact of being an elderly woman or infirm does not automatically entitle her to pre-arrest bail," the Court said.

It added that the allegations must be scrutinised based on the merits of the case. The severity of the crime takes precedence over any personal exemptions under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court said.

The proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC carves an exception for those aged under 16 years, women, sick and infirm - the court can release them on bail even if accused of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The Court was dealing with the anticipatory bail plea filed by the victim's mother-in-law.

In the present case, the victim's mother had in June lodged a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 498A (cruelty on wife by husband or his relative with respect to demand for dowry), 304B (dowry death) read with Section 34 (common intention of accused) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

She accused the victim's husband and his other relatives, including the present petitioner, of harassing her daughter for dowry and causing her death.

In July this year, the plea for anticipatory bail by the victim's father-in-law was turned down by the High Court. The order was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

The mother-in-law denied the allegations, saying she was aged 60 years and is suffering from various old age diseases including acute arthritis in her knees.

She also cited the grant of pre-arrest bail to sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim. However, the Court said pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner.

It also said she is accused of having a role similar to that of her husband whose pre-arrest bail had already been dismissed by the apex court.

"This Court, while dismissing the bail application of the applicant's husband, who is a co-accused in the present case, observed that the victim died under unnatural circumstances within three years of her marriage to the applicant’s son. This fact raises a statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Furthermore, the applicant has been specifically accused of harassing the deceased soon after her marriage, allegedly in connection with dowry demands, which eventually led to her tragic death," it added.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail and rejected her plea.

Advocates Anil Goel, Chanchal Sharma and Aditya Goel appeared for petitioner.

Additional Public Prosecutor Ajay Vikram Singh appeared for the State.

[Read order]