# DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [2020] 14 S.C.R. 294
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-12-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 872-873 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-naresh-kumar-mangla-v-smt-anita-agarwal-ors-etc-34392
- **Pages:** 33

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438 - Anticipatory Bail
- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498-A,
304-B, 323, 506 and 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.3 and
4 - Appellant's daughter died an unnatural death - According to
the respondent-accused persons she committed suicide - However,
in the FIR lodged by the appellant it was alleged that his deceased
daughter was pressurized to bring money and the appellant had
paid money on several occasions by cheque to the in-laws
(respondent-accused) of the deceased - The Session Judge observed
that an incident took place on 01.10.2017 when deceased was
allegedly assaulted by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisterin-law which led to the filing of a complaint in the police station -
The FIR further records that father-in-law of the deceased had
telephonically threatened appellant on 03.08.2020 and demanded
money - The same day appellant's daughter had informed appellant
that there was threat to her life - However, before appellant could
reach his daughter's matrimonial house to see her, he was informed
that she was admitted in hospital - After few days in hospital, she
died - The applications for anticipatory bail u/s.438 Cr.P.C. was
filed by parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
deceased - Deceased's husband was in custody - The said
applications were dismissed by the Sessions Judge referring to the
money transactions - The Single Judge of the High Court granted
the anticipatory bail to the applicants and held that (a) FIR prima
facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants; (b) there
is no co-relation between the various allegations leveled in the FIR;
(c) the allegations 'are general in nature' with no specific role being
assigned to the accused - On appeal, held: The FIR contains a
recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in
294
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment
of moneys by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased - The FIR even
referred to the telephone calls which were received from the fatherin-law of the deceased - In the face of such specific allegations in
the FIR and the reference by the Session Judge to the money
transaction, the conclusion of the Single Judge of the High Court
that the FIR prima facie has been 'engineered to implicate the
accused' defies reasonable explanation - Similar is the case with
the finding that 'there is no co-relation between the allegations
leveled in the FIR' - A reading of the FIR would reveal that the
finding of the Single Judge that the allegations 'are general without
assigning a specific role to the accused' is contrary to the record -
The entire approach of the High Court is flawed - The grant of
anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct
the investigation - Therefore, the orders passed by the Single Judge
of the High Court allowing the applications for anticipatory bail
are set aside and bail granted to the accused persons is cancelled.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Transfer of further
investigation to CBI - Penal Code, 1860 - s.364-B - Dowry death
- Appellant's daughter died an unnatural death - According to the
respondent-accused persons, she committed suicide - It was alleged
in the FIR that appellant's daughter-deceased was pressurized to
bring money - There were prior allegations of assault against the
accused persons/in-laws of appellant's daughter - The application
for anticipatory bail filed by the in-laws of appellant's daughter
was rejected by the Session Judge - However, applications were
allowed by the High Court - Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted
- Before the Supreme Court, the State filed counter-affidavit through
Deputy Superintendent of Police and stated that the High Court
has not taken into consideration the prior allegations of assault/
injuries sustained by deceased in the year 2017 - It was further
stated that the medical reports and facts revea

## Text

_Characters 0–39,971 of 73,018. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39971 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
 [2020] 14 S.C.R. 294
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA
 v.
SMT. ANITA AGARWAL & ORS. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 872-873 of 2020)
DECEMBER 17, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.438 - Anticipatory Bail
- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498-A,
304-B, 323, 506 and 313 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.3 and
4 - Appellant's daughter died an unnatural death - According to
the respondent-accused persons she committed suicide - However,
in the FIR lodged by the appellant it was alleged that his deceased
daughter was pressurized to bring money and the appellant had
paid money on several occasions by cheque to the in-laws
(respondent-accused) of the deceased - The Session Judge observed
that an incident took place on 01.10.2017 when deceased was
allegedly assaulted by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisterin-law which led to the filing of a complaint in the police station -
The FIR further records that father-in-law of the deceased had
telephonically threatened appellant on 03.08.2020 and demanded
money - The same day appellant's daughter had informed appellant
that there was threat to her life - However, before appellant could
reach his daughter's matrimonial house to see her, he was informed
that she was admitted in hospital - After few days in hospital, she
died - The applications for anticipatory bail u/s.438 Cr.P.C. was
filed by parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
deceased - Deceased's husband was in custody - The said
applications were dismissed by the Sessions Judge referring to the
money transactions - The Single Judge of the High Court granted
the anticipatory bail to the applicants and held that (a) FIR prima
facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants; (b) there
is no co-relation between the various allegations leveled in the FIR;
(c) the allegations 'are general in nature' with no specific role being
assigned to the accused - On appeal, held: The FIR contains a
recital of allegations bearing on the role of the accused in
294
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
295
demanding dowry, of the prior incidents of assault and the payment
of moneys by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased - The FIR even
referred to the telephone calls which were received from the fatherin-law of the deceased - In the face of such specific allegations in
the FIR and the reference by the Session Judge to the money
transaction, the conclusion of the Single Judge of the High Court
that the FIR prima facie has been 'engineered to implicate the
accused' defies reasonable explanation - Similar is the case with
the finding that 'there is no co-relation between the allegations
leveled in the FIR' - A reading of the FIR would reveal that the
finding of the Single Judge that the allegations 'are general without
assigning a specific role to the accused' is contrary to the record -
The entire approach of the High Court is flawed - The grant of
anticipatory bail in such a serious offence would operate to obstruct
the investigation - Therefore, the orders passed by the Single Judge
of the High Court allowing the applications for anticipatory bail
are set aside and bail granted to the accused persons is cancelled.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Transfer of further
investigation to CBI - Penal Code, 1860 - s.364-B - Dowry death
- Appellant's daughter died an unnatural death - According to the
respondent-accused persons, she committed suicide - It was alleged
in the FIR that appellant's daughter-deceased was pressurized to
bring money - There were prior allegations of assault against the
accused persons/in-laws of appellant's daughter - The application
for anticipatory bail filed by the in-laws of appellant's daughter
was rejected by the Session Judge - However, applications were
allowed by the High Court - Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted
- Before the Supreme Court, the State filed counter-affidavit through
Deputy Superintendent of Police and stated that the High Court
has not taken into consideration the prior allegations of assault/
injuries sustained by deceased in the year 2017 - It was further
stated that the medical reports and facts revealed that deceased
was killed - The State supported the appellant in assailing the
correctness of the order granting anticipatory bail - According to
the State no investigation on allegation of murder was conducted -
Held: The conduct of the investigating authorities from the stage of
arriving at the scene of occurrence to the filing of the charge-sheet
do not inspire confidence - The stance taken by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police in the counter-affidavit filed few days after
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
forwarding the charge-sheet, travels beyond the scope of the
investigation recorded in the charge-sheet - The critical facts of
money trail between the deceased, her father and the accused; and
the call history of father-in-law of deceased, father of deceased
and the deceased were not explored - No investigation on allegation
of murder was conducted - There were glaring deficiencies in the
investigation conducted - The status of the accused as propertied
and wealthy persons of influence and the conduct of the
investigation thus far diminishes the faith of Court in directing a
further investigation by the same authorities - Therefore, it is
necessary to entrust a further investigation of the case to the CBI in
exercise of power u/Art.142 of the Constitution.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no cogent basis for the Single Judge of
the High Court to have arrived at findings that (a) "the FIR prima
facie appears to be engineered to implicate the applicants"; (b)
"there is no co-relation in between the various allegations leveled
in the FIR"; and (c) the allegations "are general in nature" with
no specific role being assigned to the accused. The informant
had suffered a loss of his own daughter due to an unnatural death
in close proximity to the lodging of his complaint. The FIR contains
a reference to the previous incident of October 2017, to the
demands for dowry, payments of money in cheque by the informant
to the groom's family and the telephone calls received by the
informant from the father-in-law of the deceased and later from
the deceased in close proximity to the incident, on the same day
that she died. The FIR contains specific allegations against the
accused, commencing with the incident of October 2017. Whether
such an incident, as reported by the deceased to the police on
01 October 2017 did take place, leading to her suffering injuries
which were examined at the Government Hospital, is a matter
for investigation. How the 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. Similar is the case with the finding that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
"there is no co-relation between the allegations leveled in the
FIR." A reading of the FIR would reveal that the finding of the
Single Judge that the allegations "are general without assigning
a specific role to the accused" is contrary to the record. The
Single Judge observed, from the income tax returns of the
accused, that "it cannot be said that they are not of sufficient
means". The Single Judge has erred in drawing this inference
without a full investigation by the investigating arm of the state.
The respondent-accused as sought to rely on the payment of
monies to the deceased by the two hospital establishments, the
transfer of funds for the purchase of properties and the joint
ownership of properties. The trail of monies alleged to be
received by the deceased for her professional work is a matter
to be investigated. Similarly, the transfer of monies by the
deceased to her father-in-law and the nexus, if any, with the funds
which she had received from her parents is a matter for serious
investigation. The death was unnatural which took place within
seven years of the marriage. The alleged phone calls received
by the informant from some of the accused and by the deceased
on the day when she was found to be hanging are matters which
required to be probed. The alleged absence of an external injury
on the body of the deceased is a matter for investigation. 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. [Para 14][313-B-H;
314-A]
2. Judged in the light of the settled legal 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 moneys by
cheque to the in-laws of the deceased. The FIR has referred to
the telephone calls which were received both from the father-inlaw of the deceased on the morning of 03 August 2020 and from
the deceased on two occasions on the same day- a few hours
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
before her body was found. The grant of anticipatory bail in such
a serious offence would operate to obstruct the investigation.
The FIR by a father who has suffered the death of his daughter in
these circumstances cannot be regarded as "engineered" to
falsely implicate the spouse of the deceased and his family.
[Para 19][320-B-D]
3. Having regard to the circumstances which have emerged
on the record, which have been adverted to in the earlier part of
the judgment, this Court is 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.
The conduct of the investigating authorities from the stage of
arriving at the scene of occurrence to the filing of the chargesheet do not inspire confidence in the robustness of the process.
A perusal of the charge-sheet evinces a perfunctory rendition of
the investigating authorities' duty by a bare reference to the facts
and the presumption under Section 304B of the IPC when the
death occurs within seven years of the marriage. The stance taken
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Counter Affidavit,
filed a few days after forwarding the charge-sheet, travels beyond
the scope of the investigation recorded in the charge-sheet with
respect to the veracity of the suicide note, medical examination
of injuries and the past miscarriages of the deceased. Critical
facts of the money trail between the deceased, her father (the
informant), and the accused; and the call history of A2, the
informant and the deceased are unexplored. No attempt at
custodial interrogation of the applicants was made between the
issuance of non-bailable warrants on 09 September 2020 and
interim protection from arrest by the High Court granted on 22
September 2020. As noted above, upon questioning during the
hearing, the Counsel for the State answered that no investigation
on the allegation of murder had been conducted. It would indeed
be a travesty if this Court were to ignore the glaring deficiencies
in the investigation conducted so far, irrespective of the stage of
the proceedings or the nature of the question before this Court.
The status of the accused as propertied and wealthy persons of
influence in Agra and the conduct of the investigation thus far
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
diminishes this Court's faith in directing a further investigation
by the same authorities. The cause of justice would not be served
if the Court were to confine the scope of its examination to the
wisdom of granting anticipatory bail and ignore the possibility of
a trial being concluded on the basis of a deficient investigation at
best or a biased one at worst. [Para 23][325-D-H; 326-A-B]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
(2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15 SCR 201; Jai Prakash
Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379 : [2012] 5
SCR 1; Sushila Agarwal v. NCT of Delhi (2020) 5 SCC
1: [2020] 2 SCR 1; Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of
Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180 : [2012] 10 SCR 847;
Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana
(2020) 2 SCC 743; Pokar Ram v.. State of
Rajasthan,(1985) 2 SCC 597: [1985] 3 SCR 780;
Arnab Goswami v. Union of India WP (Crl) 130 of 2020,
decided on 19 May 2020; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad (2013)
5 SCC 762: [2012] 13 SCR 1005; Pooja Pal v. Union
of India (2016) 3 SCC 135: [2016] 11 SCR 560;
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC
160: [2016] 1 SCR 194 - relied on.
Puran v. Ramvilas (2001) 6 SCC 338; [2001] 3 SCR
432 ; State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC
21: [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Jaiprakash Singh v.
State of Bihar (2012) 4 SCC 379: [2012] 5 SCR 1;
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015]
10 SCR 802; State v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC
187: [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 737; Adri Narayan Das v.
State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303: [2005]
2 SCR 188 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 3 SCR 432
referred to
Para 7
[2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454
referred to
Para 7
[2012] 5 SCR 1
referred to
Para 7
[2015] 10 SCR 802
referred to
Para 7
[2020] 2 SCR 1
relied on
Para 7
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 737
referred to
Para 7
[2005] 2 SCR 188
referred to
Para 7
[2010] 15 SCR 201
relied on
Para 16
[2012] 5 SCR 1
relied on
Para 16
[2012] 10 SCR 847
relied on
Para 18
(2020) 2 SCC 743
relied on
Para 18
[1985] 3 SCR 780
relied on
Para 19
[2012] 13 SCR 1005
relied on
Para 22
[2016] 11 SCR 560
relied on
Para 22
[2016] 1 SCR 194
relied on
Para 22
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos. 872-73 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 5457 of 2020 & Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
5460 of 2020.
K.M. Nataraj, ASG, Shekhar Naphade, Sidharth Luthra, R. Basant,
Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, Sr. Advs., Sanjay Kharde, Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer,
Satyajeet Kharde, Ms. Prashi Tyagi, Sunil Kumar Verma, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Atul Sharma, Nitesh Jain, Abhishek Agarwal, Vishnu Shankar
Jain, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
A. Background
B. Submissions of Counsel
C. Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail
D. Transfer of further investigation to the CBI
E. Summation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
301
1. Leave granted
A. Background
2. Applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("CrPC") were filed by four out of five
persons who have been named as accused in Case Crime No.0623 of
2020 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra under Sections
498A, 304-B, 323, 506 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.The husband of the
deceased1 is in custody. The applicants for anticipatory bail are the
parents-in-law2, brother-in-law3 and sister-in-law4 of the deceased. A
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the
applications and granted them anticipatory bail. The father of the
deceased is in appeal.
3. The marriage between the deceased (Deepti) and Sumit
Agarwal took place on 3 November 2014. On 7 August 2020, the appellant
lodged a complaint which was registered as a First Information Report
("FIR") under Section 154 of the CrPC. The FIR, inter alia, records
that Deepti was a doctor and the appellant spent an amount in excess of
Rs.1.50 crores for conducting the marriage. It is alleged that even
thereafter, Sumit, his parents, brother-in-law and sister-in-law misbehaved
with the deceased on account of dowry. The deceased, it is alleged,was
pressurized to bring money. The FIR alleges that the appellant had paid
money on several occasions by cheque to the in-laws of the deceased.
On account of the demand for dowry, it was alleged that she was severely
assaulted in 2017 and the injuries were medically examined at the
Government Hospital in Vrindavan. In the meantime, Deepti suffered
miscarriages on two occasions and ultimately, adopted a daughter. As
regards the incident which eventually led to the unnatural death by the
alleged suicide of Deepti, the FIR records that:
"About 18-19 days ago, all the abovementioned family members
of her in-laws badly beaten up Dipti on account of dowry and
threatened her that if she informed the family of her parents, she
will have to face the consequences. On 03.08.2020, in the morning,
Dr S. C. Agarwal telephonically threatened the applicant and
demanded the money, and also threatened that either I should
fulfill the demand, otherwise, I will be responsible for whatever
1 A-1
2 A-2 and A-3
3 A-4
4 A-5
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
happens in future. The same day in the afternoon at 3:09 PM and
thereafter at 5:31 PM in the evening, Dipti told the applicant and
the wife of the applicant about beating up done by them about 1819 days ago and regarding taking advice by all the people and
about threat to her life. At the time, the applicant was in Faridabad
and he told her about coming to Agra in the night itself. However,
before the applicant could reach in the evening on the same day
these dowry greedy people killed Dipti in [xxx] for non-receipt of
dowry and non-fulfilment of the demands, and admitted Dipti in
their hospital itself in the almost dead condition, in order to save
themselves, but she was not allowed any treatment with the
intention of killing her. In order to save the life of Dipti, the applicant
took her away to the Sarvodaya hospital Faridabad for treatment,
at the earliest, in the morning itself, where Dipti died yesterday on
06.08.2020 during treatment. These people have also taken
possession of the entire money which was earned by Dipti. Dipti
has been killed by Sumit, S.C. Agarwal, Mrs Anita, Amit and Tulika,
for dowry with cruel behavior. We performed the last rites of
Dipti in Kosi. Since we were busy in the treatment and performing
the last rites of Dipti, the applicant has come for filing the report."
4. The spouse of the deceased-who is also a doctor by
profession,was taken into custody on 7 August 2020. On 10 August 2020,
the four respondents (A-2 to A-5) sought anticipatory bail before the
Sessions Court, Agra5. By an order dated 21 August 2020,the Sessions
Judge, Agra declined anticipatory bail. After adverting to the submission
of the accused that a suicide note which was allegedly left behind by the
deceased did not contain any allegation of harassment for dowry and
the deceased was a partner and investor in the Agra Medical and Cardiac
Super Specialty Hospital set up by her father-in-law, the Sessions Judge
observed:
"On the other hand, the documents have been filed on behalf of
the complainant side, in which it has been shown that the money
was transferred to different transactions. The photocopy of the
application dated 01.10.2017 submitted by the deceased to the
SHO, Kosikalan, District Mathura, has also been filed, in which it
is mentioned about beating up of the deceased by Dr Amit Agarwal,
5 Anticipatory bail application nos. 241/242 of 2020
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
303
Tulika Agarwal and Anita Agarwal and pushing her down through
the stairs with the intention of killing her, and it has been mentioned
that she suffered considerable injuries in it. It has also been stated
in it that all this has happened at the instance of her father-in-law
S.C. Agarwal, who has asked her to bring Rs.20 lakhs from the
family of her parents. In addition, the photocopy of the injury report
of the deceased dated 02.10.2017 of the additional district joint
hospital, Brindaban has also been filed."
5. The Sessions Judge noted that besides naming the accused
specifically, there were also allegations against the four respondentsin
the FIR of torturing the deceased and of making demands for dowry.On
9 September 2020, non-bailable warrants were issued against the four
accused. Applications for anticipatory bail were filed on their behalf
before the High Court6. On 22 September 2020, a learned Single Judge,
after noting the submissions, posted the applications for anticipatory bail
for "further hearing" on 28 September 2020 and protected the accused
against arrest in the interim. On 28 September 2020, another Single Judge
of the High Court before whom the application was listed noted the fact
that the earlier order dated 22 September 2020 had posted the application
for "further hearing" and directed the registry to process the listing of
the proceedings accordingly. Eventually, anticipatory bail has been granted
by the order of the High Court dated 29 September 2020. The reasons
on the basis of which the High Court proceeded to grant anticipatory
bail are contained in paragraph 20 of the judgment of the High Court
which is extracted below:
"20. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, learned
A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the informant and the
undisputed position which has emerged from the record as noted
above, the fact of the matter is that the applicants are the fatherin-law, mother-in-law, Jeth and Jethani of deceased. Secondly,
the husband of the deceased is already in jail.Thirdly, the F.I.R. is
not to be treated as an encyclopedia of prosecution case but must
reflect the basic prosecution case. When judged in the light of
above, the F.I.R. prima facie appears to be engineered to implicate
the applicants.There is no co-relation in between the various
allegations leveled in the F.I.R.The allegations made are general
6 Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.5457/5460 of 2020
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
in nature and no specific role has been assigned to any of the
above named applicants regarding the alleged demand of dowry.
From the perusal of the material on record, particularly the incometax returns it cannot be said that the applicants are not of sufficient
means.The absence of any external injury on the body of the
deceased, clearly denotes the bonafide (sic) of applicants."
6. Notice was issued on the Special Leave Petitions on 27 October
2020. In pursuance of the order, the State of Uttar Pradesh has entered
appearance and is represented by Shri Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, Senior
Counsel and Mr Vishnu Shankar Jain as Counsel. The respondentaccused are represented by Mr Sidharth Luthra and Mr R Basant, Senior
Counsel. Counter affidavits and written submissions have been filed.
B. Submissions of Counsel
7. Assailing the grant of anticipatory bail, Mr Shekhar Naphade,
Senior Counsel representing the Appellant, submitted that:
(i)
Though specific allegations have been leveled in the FIR
that the deceased has been killed, which indicates the
commission of a cognizable offence, there has been no
investigation by the police of whether the death was
homicidal and she was murdered;
(ii)
The Sessions Judge, while denying anticipatory bail, made
a specific reference to the transfer of moneys by the
deceased into the account of her father-in-law. As a matter
of fact, between 19 November 2015 and15 December 2018,
an amount of Rs.50.53 lacs was transferred by the parents
of the deceased (of which an amount of Rs.15 lacs has
been paid directly by a family friend to the father-in-law of
the deceased), the rest being transferred into her account.
The amount of Rs 15 lakhs was repaid by the informant on
17 December 2019 to the person who had lent the moneys.
Between 4 December 2015 and 1 March 2017, the deceased
transferred an amount of Rs.24 lacs by bank transfer from
her account to the account of her father-in-law. Details of
these payments are as follows:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
305
(iii)
The deceased was an anesthetist and was working in the
family run nursing home of the respondent-accused. She
died within 5years and 8 months of her marriage. There
are specific allegations in the FIR of an incident which took
place on 1 October 2017 when the deceased was assaulted
by her mother-in-law and by the elder brother of her
husband(brother-in-law of the deceased) and his
spouse(sister-in-law of the deceased); at the instance of
her father-in-law, which led to the filing of a complaint with
the SHO, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura on 1
October 2017. The medical report of the examination of
the deceased shows the presence of five injuries which
have been attributed to be caused by a hard and blunt object;
The complaint was not pursued to save the marriage of the
deceased;
(iv)
The police were informed of the incident of hanging of the
victim at 1930 hours on 3 August 2020. The investigating
team however reached the site only on 4 August 2020 at
1130and at 1330 hours prepared an inventory of articles
recovered from the scene. It is alleged that the suicide note
is missing from the list and finds a mention only in a General
Diary entry at 2356 hours.In the charge-sheet which has
eventually been filed on 5 November 2020, the recovery
panchnama of the suicide note does not find mention. The
suicide note is not in the handwriting of the deceased;
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
(v)
The FIR contains a specific allegation that on 3 August
2020 the informant had received a telephone call from the
father-in-law of the deceased demanding money and that
on the same day in the afternoon at 3:09 pm and 5:31 pm
the deceased spoke to the informant and his wife and
informed them that she had been assaulted about 18 or 19
days earlier and of the threat to her life. The appellant told
his daughter that he was in Faridabad and would reach Agra
on the same night but before he could do so the deceased
had allegedly been killed. The FIR alleges that the in-laws
of the deceased had taken away the entire money which
was earned by her as a doctor;
(vi)
The applications for anticipatory bail filed by the respondentaccused were dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 21
August 2020. A non-bailable warrant was issued on 9
September 2020. In spite of the dismissal of the applications
for anticipatory bail and the specific allegation that Deepti
had been killed, only her spouse was taken in for custodial
interrogation and the alleged murder has not been
investigated. Though until 22 September 2020, the other
accused were not protected from arrest, no effort was made
by the police to trace them in the interim;
(vii)
A charge-sheet dated 24 October 2020 was submitted to
the competent court on 5 November 2020 hastily, without
proper investigation of the crime;
(viii) The order of the High Court cannot pass muster on the
basis of the law which has been laid down by this Court in
the following decisions:
(i)
(2001) 6 SCC 338;Puran vs Ramvilas
(ii)
(2005) 8 SCC 21;State of U.P. vs Amarmani
Tripathi
(iii)
(2012) 4 SCC 379;Jaiprakash Singh vs State of
Bihar
(iv)
(2016) 15 SCC 422; Neeru Yadav vs State of
U.P.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
307
(v)
(2020) 5 SCC 1; Sushila Agarwal vs NCT of
Delhi
(vi)
(1997) 7 SCC 187; State vs Anil Sharma and
(vii) (2005) 4 SCC 303; Adri Narayan Das vs State
of West Bengal
8. Opposing the above submissions, Mr Sidharth Luthra, Senior
Counsel submitted that:
(i)
The deceased and her husband commenced living separately
from 12 October 2018;
(ii)
The post mortem report indicates that the death occurred
as a result of suicide by hanging. The absence of bodily
injuries would displace the allegation that the in-laws are
involved in the murder of the deceased;
(iii)
An amount of Rs.16.01 lacs received by the deceased in
her bank account from the family of the informant between
4 December 2015 and 25 March 2017, has been converted
into fixed deposit receipts in the State Bank of India. While
the deceased has transferred an amount of Rs.24 lacs from
her account to her father-in-law between 4 December 2015
and 1 March 2017, this was as a part of the investment
towards the construction of a hospital. As a part of the
family understanding, the father-in-law intended to set up
aseparate hospital for the deceased and her husband and
to give the management of the earlier hospital to both of
them. Hence, in order to set up Sapphire Hospital, a limited
liability partnership by the name of M/s Agra Medical and
Cardiac Super Specialty, LLP was formed on 28 December
2016 with five partners including the deceased and her
spouse who had a share each of 35%. Investments were
being made by all partners to establish Sapphire Hospital
and the total investment by the father-in-law was in the
amount of Rs.1.12 crores; and
(iv)
Several transfers of funds have been made to the deceased
from the two hospitals, besides which amounts have been
paid by the father-in-law to the deceased and her spouse
for the purchase of property in their joint names. Details of
these transactions have been furnished in the following terms:
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
(a)
Rs.27.25 lacs paid to the deceased by M/s Agra
Medical and Cardiac Research Centre between 201516 and 2017-18;
(b)
Rs.61.79 lacs paid to the deceased by
SapphireHospital (M/s Agra Medical and Cardiac
Super Specialty LLP) between 2017-18 and 201920;
(c)
Rs.66.73 lacs paid by the father-in-law to the
deceased and her spouse on 9 September 2019 and
21 September 2019 for the purchase of property; and
(d)
Rs.15 lacs paid to the deceased from the account of
the LLP for the purchase of two plots.
(v)
 An amount of Rs.30.80 lacs is invested in the name of the
deceased inter alia in the form of FDRs, bank balances,
PPF and in an RD account.
(vi)
Three immovable properties valued at about Rs.1.4 crores
are jointly owned by the deceased and her spouse;
(vii)
The alleged incident on 1 October 2017 is a fabrication since
the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased had
travelled to Mumbai on those days;
(viii) The suicide note, which has been forwarded to the forensic
science laboratory, indicates that the deceased was in a
depressed mental state due to her miscarriages;
(ix)
The recovery of the suicide note is evidenced by the
recovery memos drawn up by the police; and
(x)
The applicants have co-operated in the course of the
investigation and their statements have been recorded before
the charge-sheet was filed on 5 November 2020.
9. Supporting the above submissions, Mr R Basant, Senior Counsel
submits that Dr SC Agarwal (A-2) is a senior medical practitioner based
in Agra. He and his spouse (A-3) have two sons who are doctors by
profession, namely A-1 and A-4. A-1 was the spouse of the deceased
while A-4 and A-5 are spouses. Two hospitals were set up by A-2 with
the object of ensuring separate establishments for his sons, A-1 and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
309
A-4.Supporting the grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court, Mr Basant
submitted that:
(i)
The tenor of the suicide note indicates that the deceased
was suffering from mental depressionas a result of
successive miscarriages and she had, in fact, adopted a girl
child in June 2018;
(ii)
On 12 October 2018, the deceased and her spouse set up a
separate residence for themselves;
(iii)
The deceased had drawn salary from both the hospitals
which have been set up by her father-in-law. A-2 had
transferred money to A-1 and the deceased to enable them
to buy immovable property in their joint names; and
(iv)
After the deceased attempted to commit suicide on 3 August
2020, she was rushed to the family run nursing home run
by her father-in-law. The police reached the scene of the
incident on the evening of 3 August 2020,though no FIR
was registered until 7 August 2020. Articles were recovered
on 3 and 4 August 2020. The suicide note was recovered
on 3 August 2020. It was deposited in the malkhana on 4
August 2020, as reflected in Entry 85 of the General
Diary.The deceased was subsequently removed to another
hospital by her father, the appellant. On 5 August 2020, the
suicide note was extensively published in the local
newspapers in spite of which the complaint does not indicate
that it is fabricated. The suicide note,it has been submitted,
contains no reference to harassment on account of dowry.
10. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed a counter affidavit in
these proceedings through Harish Chandra Tamta working in the Circle
Office (Deputy Superintendent of Police),District Agra. The Counter
Affidavit contains the following statements:
"9. It is relevant to mention that High Court has not taken into
consideration the bodily injury sustained by deceased Dipti in the
year 2017 and the contents of FIR lodged by her with the police
station.
10. It is relevant to mention that on 2.8.2020 Sumit Agarwal
(husband) and Anita Agarwal (mother-in-law) of the deceased
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
through mobile call made at 9.30 a.m demanded dowry and had
asked that serious consequences will follow if money was not
paid.
10. Dr. Dipti suffered two (sic) abortions due to the ill-treatment
given by her husband and in-laws.
11. There is no explanation for the injuries found on the body of
deceased.
12. The medical report and the facts revealed that deceased
hasbeen killed.
13. It is the case of continuous demand of dowry, causing torture
and victimization of the deceased and the deceased has herself
stated in the FIR lodged in the year 2017 aboutthe demand of
dowry by her husband and in-laws.
14. It is also clear that the story of suicidedue to frustration and
adopting a child by the deceased are fictitious andbaseless. The
alleged suicide note is not in the handwriting of (sic) Dr. Dipti.
The said document is false, fabricated and has been prepared by
the accused persons and they are guilty of committing of offence
u/s 468 & 471 of IPC.
15. That Respondent-State is also relying upon the law laid down
by this Hon'ble ·Court. In case of Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi)
reported in 2012(8) SCC 730, particularly in paragraphs 8,12 and
18 of this judgment."
11. On the basis of the above averments, the State has supported
the appellant in assailing the correctness of the order granting anticipatory
bail. Significantly, on the specific query of the Court as to whether any
investigation has been carried out on the allegation that Deepti was
murdered, Mr Vimlesh Kumar Shukla, learned Senior Counsel has
answered in the negative. On the alleged suicide note, learned Senior
Counsel submitted that it was initially returned back by the FSL in the
absence of adequate material for comparing the hand writing and it has
now been re-submitted by the Investigating Officer with necessary
supporting material to the FSL, whose report is awaited.
C. Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail
12. The rival submissions will now be considered. The appellant,
who is the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint on 7 August 2020
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
311
on the basis of which FIR No. 0623 of 2020 was registered at Police
Station Tajganj in the District of Agra. The FIR contains the following
allegations:
(i)
The marriage of the deceased to A-1, the son of A-2 took
place on 3 November 2014;
(ii)
The deceased was a qualified doctor by profession;
(iii)
An amount of Rs.1.5 crores was spent on the occasion of
her marriage;
(iv)
A-1 to A-5 were dissatisfied with the moneys brought by
the bride and she was pressurized to bring an amount of
Rs. 1 crore;
(v)
The appellant paid money by cheque to the groom's family
in the interest of the domestic happiness of his daughter;
(vi)
There was an incident in 2017 when the deceased was
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;
(vii)
The deceased suffered two miscarriages and had adopted
a girl child;
(viii) There was continued harassment of the deceased and of
the child whom she had adopted;
(ix)
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;
(x)
There was a telephone call on 3 August 2020 by A-2 to the
appellant-complainant for demanding money and threatening
him with consequences;
(xi)
The deceased made telephone callsat3:09 PM and at 5:31
PM on 3 August 2020 to her parents when she revealed
being assaulted in the recent past and of the threat to her
life;
(xii)
By the time the appellant travelled from Faridabad to Agra
he found that his daughter had been killed for non-fulfillment
of the demand for dowry;
DR NARESH KUMAR MANGLA v. SMT. ANITA AGARWAL &
ORS. ETC. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
(xiii) The appellant removed the deceased to Sarvodaya hospital
at Faridabad for treatment where she died on 6 August
2020;
(xiv) The FIR was lodged after the last rites were performed;
(xv)
The accused had taken possession of the moneys which
were earned by the deceased; and
(xvi) The daughter of the appellant had been killed for dowry.
13. The police were informed of the commission of cognizable
offences. They were duty bound to investigate. One of the principal
aspects which weighed with the Sessions Judge while denying anticipatory
bail on 21 August 2020 was the fact that the informant's sidehad filed
documents indicating the transfer of moneys under different transactions.
Besides this, the Sessions Judge also relied on the letter dated 1 October
2017 addressed by the deceased to the SHO, Kosi Kalan, District
Mathura, specifically complaining that she had been assaulted by A-3,
A-4 and A-5 as a consequence of which she had suffered injuries.The
Sessions Judge noted that it has been alleged that thishad happened at
the behest of her father-in-law, A-2. Besides the contents of the FIR,
the Single Judge of the High Court was duly apprised of the fact that
though the deceased had been assaulted in 2017, the informant had not
proceeded against the spouse of the deceased and the other members
of his family, simply to save the marriage. The Single Judge, while
analyzing the rival submissions, noted that
(i)
The applicants for bail are the father-in-law, mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law;
(ii)
The spouse of the deceased is in custody; and
(iii)
The FIR is not to be treated as "an encyclopedia of the
prosecution's case but must reflect the basic prosecution
case."
Having recorded the above premises, the Single Judge held that
(a) "the FIR prima facie appears to be engineered to implicate the
applicants"; (b) "there is no co-relation in between the various allegations
leveled in the FIR"; and(c) the allegations "are general in nature" with
no specific role being assigned to the accused.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
313
14. We have prefaced this analysis by a reference to the FIR.
There is no cogent basis for the Single Judge to have arrived at any of
the three prima facie findings. The informant had suffered a loss of his
own daughter due to an unnatural death in close proximity to the lodging
of his complaint.