CRIMINAL LAW – PRE-ARREST BAIL – CONDITIONS FOR BAIL – SECTION 438, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (Cr.PC) – INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) SECTIONS 498-A, 323, 313, 506, 307, 34 – DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 SECTIONS 3, 4.
The Supreme Court of India set aside a condition imposed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi while granting pre-arrest bail to an appellant (accused in a case under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act), requiring him to resume conjugal life with his wife (Respondent No. 2) and maintain her with dignity and honor.
Held:
When considering an application for pre-arrest bail, the Court must assess whether the discretionary relief deserves to be granted based on settled parameters.
Conditions imposed for pre-arrest bail must be traceable to Section 438(2) of the Cr.PC.
A condition compelling the resumption of conjugal life is not permissible and ought not to be imposed, as it is not traceable to Section 438(2), Cr.PC. This aligns with previous decisions of the Supreme Court, such as Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Even though the appellant had initially agreed to resume conjugal life, the respondent no. 2 insisted on further conditions not agreed to by the appellant.
Imposing a condition like “maintaining the respondent no. 2 with dignity and honour” is risky as it can generate further litigation, such as an application for cancellation of bail for non-compliance, and can lead to disputed questions of fact that are difficult for the High Court to decide in a pre-arrest bail application.
The High Court should have considered the prayer for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merits.
Result:
The impugned judgment and order dated February 25, 2025, of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, were set aside.
The appeal (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4862 of 2025) was allowed.
The pre-arrest bail application (A.B.A. No. 4200 of 2024) was restored to the High Court for a fresh decision on its own merits as early as possible.
Interim protection granted by the Supreme Court to the appellant on April 3, 2025, will continue until the fresh decision.
Case: Anil Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih.
Date of Order: July 29, 2025.
