Anticipatory Bail Granted: Supreme Court Overrules Bombay High Court in Alleged Murder Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Prassanna Venkardari Agrahar vs. State of Maharashtra, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s decision and granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. The case revolved around the alleged murder of the appellant’s wife, where the prosecution claimed that she was injected with a lethal substance. The Court emphasized the importance of evidence, due process, and the lack of direct accusations by the victim’s family in granting bail.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Dr. Prassanna Venkardari Agrahar, a neurosurgeon practicing in Solapur, was accused of murdering his wife, Dr. Rashmi, in July 2015. Rashmi, a diabetic, allegedly died of a heart attack on the night of July 8-9, 2015. Her parents were informed immediately and, upon arriving in Solapur, affirmed that her death was natural and agreed not to conduct a post-mortem.

Over a month later, an anonymous letter was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur, accusing the appellant of murdering his wife for an insurance payout and due to an alleged extramarital affair. The police began investigating the case, summoning the appellant for questioning.

Legal Proceedings

• The appellant filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Solapur, which was rejected on May 3, 2016.
• He then moved the Bombay High Court with an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed on June 15, 2016.
• Following this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Dr. Prassanna Venkardari Agrahar)

The appellant’s counsel argued:

• The appellant was a well-respected neurosurgeon and had no prior criminal record.
• His wife, Dr. Rashmi, was suffering from chronic diabetes and had been under treatment.
• On the night of her death, she suffered a heart attack and was examined by Dr. Prabhakaran, who issued a medical certificate confirming natural death.
• Rashmi’s parents were informed immediately and did not suspect foul play.
• They even swore affidavits on July 14, 2015, and April 6, 2016, affirming her natural death.
• Over a month later, an anonymous letter was sent to the police, falsely implicating the appellant.
• The appellant had cooperated with the investigation and there was no direct evidence linking him to any crime.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Maharashtra)

The prosecution, representing the State of Maharashtra, opposed the bail application, arguing:

• The appellant took advantage of his profession as a doctor and issued the medical certificate himself, declaring his wife’s death as natural.
• The police received an anonymous letter on August 28, 2015, stating that the appellant had injected his wife with a fatal substance.
• The body was cremated without a post-mortem, raising suspicion.
• After the death, the appellant claimed the insurance money of the deceased.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the facts and the legal submissions made by both parties. The Court noted:

“It is not disputed that more than a month after the death of Dr. Rashmi, an anonymous letter led to the initiation of an investigation. Her parents, who were present at the time of cremation, did not raise any suspicion regarding her death.”

The Court further observed:

• The victim’s family did not file any complaint against the appellant.
• Dr. Rashmi’s father explicitly stated in an affidavit that she had a happy married life and died a natural death.
• The appellant had no prior criminal record and had cooperated with the investigation.
• There was no direct evidence to support the murder allegation.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant and set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision, granting anticipatory bail. The conditions imposed were:

• The appellant shall be released on bail if arrested, on furnishing a personal bond of INR 1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses.
• He must appear before the investigating officer and the court whenever required.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prassanna Venkardari Agrahar vs. State of Maharashtra highlights the importance of evidence-based investigations and due process in criminal cases. The ruling ensures that personal liberty is not curtailed merely based on suspicion or an anonymous complaint without substantive proof. The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail should not be denied when no strong evidence exists against the accused.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Prassanna Venkardari vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-03-2017.pdf