Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently set aside the Jharkhand High Court's decision to impose a pre-arrest bail condition that the accused shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih called out the imposition of such a condition not traceable to Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

“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.”, the court said.

“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 which is not traceable to Section 438(2), Cr. PC.”, the court added.

The Appellant-husband was booked 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 IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

An anticipatory bail application was filed before the Jharkhand High Court, which agreed to grant pre-arrest bail subject to the condition that the Appellant-husband shall resume conjugal rights with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honor.

Aggrieved by the imposition of such a condition, which could have given rise to further litigation, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Noting that the High Court committed an error, the Court observed:

“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 appeal was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail case was restored to the High Court's case file.

Cause Title: ANIL KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 762

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv. Mr. Simanta Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mithlesh Kumar, Adv. Dr. Pratap Singh Nerwal, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Ms. Rita Jha, AOR