Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Ravikant Srivastava @ Ravi Kant Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1803 of 2022 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 1771 of 2022]
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Matrimonial Dispute - Hindu Rights and Customs - Section 498A, 120B, 323, 324 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-husband appealed the condition imposed by the High Court for granting him anticipatory bail, which required him to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs as ad-interim victim compensation to the wife. The case involved a matrimonial dispute between the parties, with the wife filing a criminal complaint against the husband for various offenses under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no reasonable justification for the High Court's requirement of the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs for availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was the imposition of the condition for anticipatory bail, specifically the requirement to deposit a significant amount as ad-interim victim compensation in a matrimonial dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that there was no reasonable justification for imposing the condition of depositing a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs for availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail in a matrimonial dispute.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order directing the appellant to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs was set aside.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband assailing the condition incorporated by the High Court while granting him anticipatory bail under its order dated 15-02-2019 followed with dated 04/05-03-2021, indicating that for pre-arrest bail, he has to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs as ad-interim victim compensation in favour of Respondent No. 2 - wife.
3. It is indeed a matrimonial dispute between the parties and their marriage was solemnized according to the Hindu Rights and Customs on 11.06.2015, but later because of their matrimonial differences, an application was filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on 08.07.2016 and Respondent No. 2 also instituted a Criminal Complaint against the appellant (husband) No. 2233/2017 on 27.07.2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was later converted to FIR No. 3055 of 2018 on 22.02.2018 for offences under Section 498A, 120B, 323, 324 IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Being the non-cognizable offence, the appellant approached the Court by filing application seeking pre-arrest bail. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail on the premise that the appellant shall resume the conjugal life as stated in para 8 of the of the bail application. But the ground realities are once the parties are into matrimonial discord and instituting inter se proceedings to restore conjugal rights, is otherwise not possible.
5. At this point of time, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and passed the order directing the appellant to submit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs as ad-interim victim compensation, as revealed from the order dated 04/05- 03-2021 to permit the appellant to avail the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
6. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs.10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
7. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the order passed by the High Court dated 04/05-03/2022 directing the appellant to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs is hereby set aside.
8. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
The Court emphasized that the imposition of conditions for anticipatory bail should be reasonable and justified, especially in the context of matrimonial disputes.
The court established the principle that pre-arrest bail can be granted in matrimonial disputes to facilitate amicable resolutions.
Matrimonial disputes are private conflicts, and courts encourage mediation to resolve them without criminal proceedings.
Matrimonial disputes should ideally be resolved amicably, and pre-arrest bail may be granted when no criminal intentions are present.
Matrimonial disputes require sensitive handling and should be resolved amicably rather than pursued through criminal litigation.
The court promotes mediation in matrimonial disputes, highlighting the need for amicable resolution over prolonged litigation.
Encouragement of amicable settlement in matrimonial disputes; abuse of process of law is not to be ignored.
Anticipatory bail can be granted to prevent detrimental effects on marital relationships, even in cases of serious allegations like matrimonial cruelty.
Matrimonial disputes do not inherently constitute societal offenses; courts should encourage mediation to settle such matters amicably.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
