Recently, the Supreme Court held that imposing a condition of resuming conjugal life as a prerequisite for granting pre-arrest bail falls outside the scope of permissible conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The Court made this observation while setting aside a Jharkhand High Court order that had allowed anticipatory bail to an accused on the condition that he resumes marital relations and maintains his wife with dignity. The Court warned that such conditions risk leading to further litigation and place an undue burden on the courts.
The case arose out of a criminal proceeding initiated against the appellant based on allegations made by his wife, leading to registration of an FIR under various serious sections of the IPC including cruelty, assault, attempt to murder, and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
The Jharkhand High Court, while granting pre-arrest bail, imposed an unusual condition, that the appellant must resume conjugal life with his wife and maintain her with dignity and honour.
The counsel for the complainant-wife submitted before the Apex Court that the appellant had voluntarily agreed during the High Court hearing to resume conjugal life, and therefore could not later retract from that position. It was argued that the condition was not unilaterally imposed but flowed from a mutual understanding.
The Apex Court acknowledged that although the appellant had agreed to resume conjugal life, there was no consent on additional conditions regarding the manner of maintaining his spouse. The bench emphasized, "Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. 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 Court further observed that such conditions are not contemplated under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and cannot be judicially enforced as they introduce personal and disputed elements into a procedural matter.
Referring to its earlier decisions in Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that discretion under anticipatory bail must be exercised within legal parameters, and conditions should not extend into matters unrelated to the offence or beyond the statutory scope.
Setting aside the impugned judgment, the Apex Court allowed the appeal. The matter has been remanded to the High Court with directions to reconsider the pre-arrest bail application on its own merits, without reference to the previously imposed condition. The interim protection granted by the Supreme Court earlier shall remain in force until the High Court passes a fresh order.
Case Title: Anil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 4862 OF 2025
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masi
Picture Source :
