The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

Supreme Court Strikes Down 'Impracticable' Bail Condition: 'Law Does Not Compel the Impossible

29 August 2024 11:12 AM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent ruling, overturned the Patna High Court's order imposing impractical conditions for granting pre-arrest bail in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The bench, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable and not infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the appellant’s wife, alleging dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant initially sought pre-arrest bail from the Sessions Court, which was denied, prompting an appeal to the Patna High Court. The High Court granted provisional pre-arrest bail but with conditions that required the appellant to submit an affidavit promising to fulfill all physical and financial needs of his wife, without interference from his family.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the imposition of impractical conditions by the High Court, noting that such conditions could infringe upon the personal liberty of the accused and violate the principle of justice. The court referred to the maxim "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform) to underscore the unreasonableness of the conditions imposed.

The bench remarked, "Conditions must be realistic and achievable; imposing conditions that are virtually impossible to comply with not only undermines the purpose of bail but also puts undue pressure on the accused, potentially violating their constitutional rights."

The court cited several precedents, including the landmark decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, which cautioned against imposing excessive conditions for bail. The judgment reiterated that the primary purpose of bail conditions should be to secure the presence of the accused and ensure a fair trial, not to impose undue hardships.

Justice Ravikumar, delivering the judgment, observed, "Conditions for bail, particularly in matrimonial disputes, should aim to facilitate reconciliation, not exacerbate the conflict. The High Court’s condition requiring the appellant to unconditionally fulfill all physical and financial requirements of the complainant was neither practical nor conducive to restoring domestic harmony."

By setting aside the High Court's impractical conditions, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of fair and reasonable bail conditions, particularly in cases involving matrimonial discord. The judgment serves as a critical reminder to lower courts to exercise caution in imposing bail conditions, ensuring they do not violate the constitutional rights of the accused while still fulfilling the purpose of securing justice.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2024

Sudeep Chatterjee vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.

Similar News