Imposing Irrelevant Conditions Under Section 438 CrPC Is Unwarranted: SC While Setting Aside Bail Condition Imposed By High Court To Pay Maintenance To Wife
While granting bail to the Appellant, the Patna High Court had directed him to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, with a provision for cancellation of bail in case of non-payment for two consecutive months.
The Supreme Court has set aside a condition imposed by the Patna High Court that linked the grant of anticipatory bail to a husband's payment of monthly maintenance to his wife in a domestic violence case.
The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti emphasized that bail conditions must be relevant to ensuring the accused's availability for trial and preventing flight from justice.
"When an application for bail is filed, the Court is required to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face Trial. Imposing conditions irrelevant to the exercise of power under Section 438 CrPC is unwarranted," the Court observed.
AOR Fauzia Shakil appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate Anshul Narayan appeared for the respondent.
Facts of Case
The Appellant-husband had sought anticipatory bail from the Patna High Court in connection with a case registered under Sections 498(A), 504, 379, and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While granting bail, the High Court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, with a provision for cancellation of bail in case of non-payment for two consecutive months.
The husband challenged this condition before the Apex Court, arguing that it was beyond the scope of bail proceedings. Shakil contended that the marriage itself was disputed and annulment proceedings were pending before a competent Court.
The Complainant-wife did not appear in the Apex Court proceedings, but the State counsel defended the High Court's order, pointing out that the condition was based on the husband's willingness to pay maintenance.
After reviewing the case, the Court ruled that the High Court’s condition of tying anticipatory bail to maintenance payment was not justified. The Bench clarified that the Trial Court should impose appropriate bail conditions solely to ensure the appellant's availability during the trial.
"We are of the view that the bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay Rupees Four Thousand per month as maintenance to the informant (respondent no.2) was not merited. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. However, appellant is bound to remain available and face the trial as required by law. The learned Trial Court should therefore impose appropriate bail condition(s) to facilitate the appellant to remain on bail, while availing bail under the impugned order dated 17.07.2023," the Court said in its order dated January 6.
Cause Title: Srikant Kumar@ Shrikant Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).13083/2023]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocate Fauzia Shakil (AOR)
Respondent: Advocates Anshul Narayan, Prem Prakash
Click here to read/download the Order
