SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Kunal Kumar Tiwari @ Kunal Kumar – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1536 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4463 of 2017)
Decided On : 21-08-2017
conditions for anticipatory bail - Cr.P.C Section 438 - The court analyzes Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the grant of anticipatory bail. It notes that the court may impose conditions under sub-section (2), including those that can be imposed under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. The court further examines Section 437(3), which allows for the imposition of conditions in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenges the order of the High Court which imposed onerous conditions while granting anticipatory bail. The case involves allegations of dowry demand and torture. The High Court's conditions were deemed arbitrary and not in line with the purpose of the criminal justice system.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzes the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding anticipatory bail and the imposition of conditions. It emphasizes the need for conditions to be in the interest of justice and not arbitrary or fanciful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court sets aside the High Court's order and makes the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court absolute. The onerous conditions imposed by the High Court are deemed invalid.
Result: The appeal is disposed of in favor of the appellant.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This case raises short but interesting point of law concerning the nature of conditions which may be imposed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter 'Cr.P.C' for brevity] while granting anticipatory bail. At the outset, this case reflects on the need for judicial self-restraint and distaste for result oriented justice over a principled adjudication in consonance with the letter of law.
3. The appellant herein assails the order dated 17.05.2017, passed by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23807 of 2017, which was filed for modification of the earlier order dated 30.03.2017 in Cr. Misc. 4401 of 2017, by virtue of which the learned single judge confirmed the earlier order granting anticipatory bail with certain onerous conditions.
4. Some of the relevant facts are that after the marriage of the parties herein, respondent no 2 (wife) alleged that there was a demand, by the appellant (husband), for dowry and she was physically and mentally tortured for non-fulfillment of the same. Based on the above allegations, a complaint was registered with Hatidah Police Station under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 379, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. Appellant apprehending arrest submitted an application before the High Court seeking an anticipatory bail. In pursuance thereof, the High Court has passed an order dated 30.03.2017 in Cri. Misc. No. 4401 of 2017 and order dated 17.05.2017 in Cri. Misc. No. 23807 of 2017. It would be useful for the purposes of the discussion herein to extract the directions passed by the High Court in Cri. Misc. No. 4401 of 2017-
"Be that as it may, after talking with both husband and wife today, I am also of the view that, now, at this stage, there is no chance of both parties living together. Husband is working in Delhi Metro and it will be unnecessary harassment for both husband wife to come to court and place their case.
Accordingly, this application is disposed off with direction to petitioner to surrender before the court below i.e. sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barth (Distt-Patna), within a period of four weeks from today in connection with complaint case no. 882 @ of 2015 along with wife. In the event the Court below find that petitioner is ready to keep the wife with full dignity and care but wife does not want to go with him or both parties are adamant to live separate and wants divorce with mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court below will release the petitioner on provisional bail to its own satisfaction for a period of one year and will monitor the relationship between the parties by calling both of them every three months in the court and in the event the court below finds that good conjugal relationship have been restored between husband and wife and wife does not make any complaint about the physical and mental torture committed by the petitioner during the period of her stay him or the conjugal relationship could not be restored on account of indifferent attitude of the wife or both parties have agreed to live separate and take divorce with mutual consent under provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court below confirm the provisional bail granted to the petitioner after one year.
It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not surrender in the court below along with the wife, as ordered above, or the petitioner refuses to keep the wife with him when she become ready to go with him to live or the wife during the period of monitoring makes complain about physical and mental torture committed by the petitioner, it will be open to the court below to pass appropriate order in accordance with law including cancellation of provisional bail granted to the petitioner without taking into consideration the observations made above by this court."
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crim. Misc. No. 23
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.