Dr Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agarwal

(iii) The deceased was an anesthetist and was working in the family run nursing home of the respondent-accused. She died within 5 years 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 1130 and 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;

(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 inlaws 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 respondent-accused 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. (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

(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 a separate 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: (a) Rs.27.25 lacs paid to the deceased by M/s Agra Medical and Cardiac Research Centre between 2015-16 and 2017-18; PART B (b) Rs.61.79 lacs paid to the deceased by Sapphire Hospital (M/s Agra Medical and Cardiac Super Specialty LLP) between 2017-18 and 2019- 20;

(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 brotherin-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-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 depression as 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:

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 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 appellantcomplainant for demanding money and threatening him with consequences;

(xi) The deceased made telephone calls at 3:09 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;

(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 side had 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 this had 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 corelation 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.

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. 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 1 October 2017 did take place, leading to her suffering injuries which were examined at the Government Hospital, is a matter for investigation. 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. 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 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. Mr Luthra has 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. It is contrary to the record and, as we shall now explain, contrary to settled principles of law governing the exercise of discretion on the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving the alleged commission of a serious offence.

15 It is a well settled principle of law that the setting aside of an “unjustified, illegal or perverse order” granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail on the ground of the supervening misconduct of the accused or because some new facts have emerged, requiring cancellation. In Puran vs. Ramvilas[7], this Court has held that where an order granting bail ignores material on record or if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime without furnishing reasons, the interests of justice may require that the order be set aside and bail be cancelled. The recording of no reasons is one end of the spectrum. The other end of the domain for interference with an order granting anticipatory bail (into which the present case settles) is where the reasons are contrary to the material on record and hence found to suffer from perversity.

16 The facts which must be borne in mind while considering an application for the grant of anticipatory bail have been elucidated in the decision of this Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra[8] and several other decisions. The factors to be considered include: “112. […]

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on a conviction by a court in respect of a cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice;

(iv) the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences;

(v) whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting them;

(vi) the impact of the grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of magnitude affecting a large number of people;

(vii) The court must carefully evaluate the entire material against the accused. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. Cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should be considered with even greater care and caution because overimplication in such cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.” Adverting to the above observations, in Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar[9], this Court held: “19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons... Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [(2007) 4 SCC 434: (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345], State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [(2008) 1 SCC 213: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [(2008) 13 SCC 305: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1].)”

17 In the recent decision of the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi),10 the considerations which ought to weigh with the Court in deciding an application for the grant of anticipatory bail have been reiterated. The final conclusions of the Court indicate that: “92.1…The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. 92.3…While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”

18 The Constitution Bench has reiterated that the correctness of an order granting bail is subject to assessment by an appellate or superior court and it may be set aside on the ground that the Court granting bail did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances. A two judge Bench of this Court, in Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan11, noted that: “10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognised principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this Court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail.” (emphasis supplied) Recently, this Court in Myakala Dharmarajam vs. The State of Telangana12 reiterated the above principles and stated:

19 It is apposite to mention here the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan13, while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed:

D Transfer of further investigation to the CBI 20 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. The contents of the counter affidavit are at a material divergence with the contents of the charge-sheet filed on 5 November 2020. During the course of the hearing, this Court has been specifically informed by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, that no investigation was conducted into the allegation in the FIR that the deceased had been murdered. Though much was sought to be made out of the alleged suicide note, at this stage it needs to be emphasised that its authenticity has been seriously disputed by the appellant. As the learned Senior Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Court, the forensic science laboratory referred the matter back in the absence of adequate material to assess the genuineness of the suicide note and upon resubmission, a report is awaited. Within a couple of days of the death of Deepti, 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. The sequence in this case appears to follow familiar patterns. Immediate publicity was given to the alleged suicide note. These examples are now becoming familiar. Selective disclosures to the media affect the rights of the accused in some cases and the rights of victims‟ families in others. The media does have a legitimate stake in fair reporting. But events such as what has happened in this case show how the selective divulging of information, including the disclosure of material which may eventually form a crucial part of the evidentiary record at the criminal trial, can be used to derail the administration of criminal justice. 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. Having said this, we prima facie reject the insinuation that the FIR had not doubted or referenced the suicide note, despite its publication in the news media. The daughter of the appellant had died in mysterious circumstances. The family had completed the last rites. To expect that they should be scouring the pages of the print and electronic media before reporting the crime is a mockery of the human condition. The apprehension of the appellant that A-2 and his family have a prominent social status in Agra and may have used their position in society to thwart a proper investigation cannot be regarded to be unjustified.

21 In the backdrop of what has been stated above and the serious deficiencies in the investigation, we have during the hearing, made all the counsel aware of the possibility of this court referring the case for further investigation to the CBI. The court must enter upon the prospect of such a course of action with circumspection for two reasons. First, this court has repeatedly observed that the power which is vested in a superior court to transfer the investigation to another agency, such as the CBI, must be wielded with caution. In a recent judgement of this Court, Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India14, one of us (Dr. Justice D Y Chandrachud) had interpreted the rationale underpinning the circumspection in the following terms:

22 Second, in the facts of this case, the charge-sheet which is dated 24 October 2020 has been submitted to the competent court on 5 November 2020. The submission of the charge-sheet does not oust the jurisdiction of a superior court, when as in the present case, the investigation is tainted and there is a real likelihood of justice being deflected. In Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad15, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Swatanter Kumar, has held: “43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even “reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation” are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with great circumspection.” The court held that wherever a charge-sheet has been submitted to the court, even this Court would not ordinarily reopen the investigation especially by entrusting it to a specialized agency. However, in a proper case, when the Court feels that the investigation by the police has not been in the proper perspective and that in order to do complete justice, where the facts of the case demand that the investigation be handed over to a specialized agency, a superior court is not bereft of the authority to do so. (Disha v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 13 SCC 337: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628] and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006]) In Pooja Pal vs Union of India16, a two judge Bench of this Court, speaking through Justice Amitava Roy, observed that there was no embargo on this Court to transfer an investigation to the CBI after submission of the charge-sheet in the following terms-

23 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. 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 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 A[2], 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 9 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 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.

24 Mr K M Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General of India has appeared in these proceedings with Mr Arvind Kumar Sharma, and stated that the CBI would abide by the orders of this Court. E Summation

(i) 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 cancelled; and

(ii) The CBI is directed to conduct a further investigation of the case arising out of case Crime No. 0623 of 2020 registered at Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, dated 7 August 2020.

27 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. …………......................................................J [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..……......................................................J [Indu Malhotra] …..……......................................................J [Indira Banerjee] New Delhi; December 17, 2020.