Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
Condition Beset With Risk: Supreme Court Annules Bail Condition Directing Accused To Resume Conjugal Life, Maintain Wife
|The Court said the High Court should have confined itself to assessing whether the appellant deserved pre-arrest bail under settled parameters, and not imposed a condition requiring him to maintain his wife with dignity and honour.
The Supreme Court has set aside a Jharkhand High Court's order, which had granted pre-arrest bail to an accused on the condition that he resumes conjugal life with his wife and maintains her with dignity and honour. The Court held that such a direction was impermissible while considering anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “The Court ought to have assessed whether the discretionary relief sought by the appellant for pre-arrest bail deserved to be granted within the settled parameters; if yes, conditions which are traceable to Section 438(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be imposed, but a condition such as the one impugned before us ought not to have been imposed in view of several decisions of this Court.”
Advocate Ranjeet Kumar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate on Record Pallavi Langar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant was facing allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 506, 307, and 34 of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Jharkhand High Court had granted him anticipatory bail via order, subject to the condition that he resume conjugal life with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful spouse.
Aggrieved by the imposition of such a condition, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that while the Appellant had expressed willingness to resume marital life during High Court proceedings, he had not agreed to the further condition proposed by the complainant requiring him to maintain her with “dignity and honour.” It noted, “While considering the application for pre-arrest bail of the appellant, the Court ought to have assessed whether the discretionary relief sought by the appellant for pre-arrest bail deserved to be granted within the settled parameters; if yes, conditions which are traceable to Section 438(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 could be imposed, but a condition such as the one impugned before us ought not to have been imposed in view of several decisions of this Court.”
The Bench relied on precedents such as Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. (2006), which held that bail conditions cannot impose obligations requiring factual determinations.
The Court observed, “The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. An application for cancellation of bail on the ground that such condition has not been complied with, if filed later, is bound to meet opposition from the appellant and could place the High Court in further difficulty. The High Court could find itself disabled to decide a disputed question of fact, in an application for pre-arrest bail.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the anticipatory bail application to the High Court’s file for fresh consideration.
The High Court was requested to dispose of the matter afresh at the earliest. Meanwhile, the interim protection granted to the appellant was directed to continue until final disposal.
Cause Title: Anil Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No(s). 4862/2025)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Ranjeet Kumar, Simanta Kumar, Mithlesh Kumar; AOR Dr. Pratap Singh Nerwal
Respondents: Advocates Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Sandeep Jha; AORs Pallavi Langar, Rita Jha