S.498A IPC| Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition That Husband Should Fulfill All Physical & Financial Requirements Of Wife

The Supreme Court, while setting aside onerous conditions set by the High Court while granting provisional bail to a husband in a criminal cruelty case, stressed that in cases, especially which are an off-shoot of matrimonial disputes, courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting anticipatory bail. In the present case, a complaint was filed by a wife against her husband alleging criminal cruelty. Apprehending his arrest, the husband approached the Patna High Court seeking pre-arrest bail. The Court granted him provision bail on the following condition: “Considering the desire of the parties, both the parties are directed to file a joint affidavit before the Court below to the effect that the parties have agreed to live together and petitioner must give specific statement in the said joint affidavit that he undertakes to fulfill all physical as well as financial requirement of the complainant so that she can lead a dignified life without any interference of any of the family members of the petitioner.” It was against this order that the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. Taking note of such “unfortunate instances imposing very onerous conditions”, the Bench of Justices C.T Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra added: “This is to be done warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to attempt to reconcile and re-unite.” The Bench termed the condition mentioned above as an improbable and impracticable condition. With respect to the condition of non-interference from the family members of the husband, the Court observed: “One should not be oblivious of the fact that a boy or girl, will be bonded to kith and kins besides parents and siblings and such bonded relationships cannot be severed solely due to affine and affinity towards the affinal as also cognate relationships has to be taken forward with same cordialness. Relation through marriage sans support from both the families may not flourish but may perish..” The Court also took note of the fact that the parties were willing to re-unite and observed that the same is possible only if they are put in a conducive situation to regain mutual respect, love and affection. No doubt putting a condition that one of the parties should undertake to fulfil all physical as well as financial requirements of the other party could not bring about such a situation., the Court marked. Bail conditions must be compatible with dignityThe Court stated :"In view of the unfortunate instances imposing very onerous conditions, especially in cases which are nothing but an off-shoot of matrimonial discordance, we would reiterate the view that courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable...In short, we stress upon the need to put compliable conditions while granting bail, recognizing the human right to live with dignity and with a view to secure the presence of the accused as also unhindered course of investigation, ultimately to ensure a fair trial." The Top Court also relied upon landmark judgments including Shri Gurbakash Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab., (1980) 2 SCC 565. Therein, the Court had observed that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions. It added: “An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned.”Reference was also made to the 2020 judgment of the Supreme Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. The Court underscored the need to put compliable conditions in place while granting bail. For this purpose, at the very beginning of the judgment, also referred to the maxim of 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' which means 'the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform'. “We are constrained to refer to the said maxim on being pained to see that despite a catena of decisions deprecating the practice of putting onerous conditions for pre-arrest bail such orders are being passed without giving due regard to the binding precedents.,” the Court stated. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court made bail granted to the husband as absolute while also making it clear that both parties will strive to restore their domesticity."The conditions as mentioned above contained in paragraph 6 of the impugned order for the release of the appellant on the provisional bail cannot be sustained and as such the said conditions to give undertaking that the appellant would fulfil all...

S.498A IPC| Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Condition That Husband Should Fulfill All Physical & Financial Requirements Of Wife

Gyanvi Khanna

Improbable and impracticable conditions cannot be imposed for grant of bail, the Court stated.

Tags