NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Jharkhand High Court which granted anticipatory bail to a man, allegedly accused of cruelty and attempt to murder of his wife, on the condition that he would resume conjugal life with her and maintain her with dignity and honour.
A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, held that conditioning the grant of pre-arrest bail on the accused resuming conjugal life with his wife is improper and not permissible under the law. The court quashed the order passed by the Jharkhand High Court.
“The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time. Imposing a condition that the appellant (accused husband) would maintain the respondent no.2 (wife) with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. In such state of affairs, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition,” the court observed in its order.
According to the prosecution, the husband, Anil Kumar, was allegedly an accused in a case registered under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), 506 (criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Following the complaint, Kumar moved the Jharkhand High Court for anticipatory bail. After the completion of the hearing, the High Court agreed to grant pre-arrest bail to Kumar, subject to the condition that the appellant-husband (Kumar) shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour.
Aggrieved by the imposition of such a condition, which could have given rise to further litigation, the appellant, Kumar, moved the Supreme Court challenging the same.
The apex court, however, did not concur with the High Court's order and set it aside, observing, “The HC erred in its order by doing so.”
“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… 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 said in its 29 July order.
The Supreme Court passed the order after hearing an appeal filed by Kumar against a judgment and order dated 25 February 2025.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by Kumar was allowed by the Supreme Court.