Conditions for Anticipatory Bail Cannot Dictate Conjugal Life Restoration – Patna High Court
The Patna High Court, in a landmark ruling, clarified the scope and conditions of anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving Section 498A of the IPC. The Court underscored that anticipatory bail cannot be contingent upon the restoration of conjugal relations, stating that such conditions are not justifiable in the realm of criminal jurisprudence.
The case involved Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Prasad, who was charged under Section 498A/341/323/504/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In 2017, a Coordinate Bench had granted him anticipatory bail with a unique condition: the accused had to demonstrate that he could maintain a dignified and caring relationship with his wife. The recent judgment arose from a revision petition challenging the order of a Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), who had revoked the provisional bail for non-compliance with these conditions and rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, while delivering the judgment, pointed out that the conditions imposed in the anticipatory bail granted in 2017 were inappropriate and unrealistic. The Court observed that directing parties in a criminal case to live together, where allegations of mental and physical cruelty exist, is untenable. Referring to the landmark judgment in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, the Court reiterated that arrests in offenses punishable up to seven years, like under Section 498A, require compliance with Section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, in Sushila Aggarwal And Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) And Another, the Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should not be time-bound but can be limited under specific circumstances.
The Court dismissed the notion that anticipatory bail could be used as a tool for settling matrimonial disputes or restoring conjugal relationships. The judgment emphasized that the High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail on the condition that the husband keeps his wife for a certain period and then assesses the situation.
The Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court, ensuring his release on bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. upon surrender. The Court affirmed the SDJM’s decision to reject the petitioner’s plea for discharge from the case, given the filing of the charge-sheet against him.
Date of Decision: 01-02-2024
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.
