IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail conditions cannot be contingent upon third-party actions, undermining the fundamental right to bail.

ORDER :

SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present application, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):-

“That, this is an application for quashing of the order dated 19.08.2023 passed in ABP No. 1301/2023, by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Ist, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Bettiah (Mahila)

P.S. Case No. 18/2023, whereby and where under the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 1st, Bettiah, West Champaran has heard and disposed off the bail application of the petitioners with certain observations and directions exceeding the jurisdiction U/S 438 Cr.P.C.”

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present application is to the effect that an F.I.R. was registered by the informant alleging therein that the members of her matrimonial home started demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- and one Bolero car as dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioners and others threatened the informant to get her son remarried, if the informant does not fulfill the demand of dowry.

4. It is further alleged that the named accused persons, including the husband of the informant, tried to kill the informant and finally on 18.11.2022, all the above-named persons assaulted her, tore her clothes and snatched away her streedhan and ousted her from her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the accused persons have got secretly married the husband of the informant with one Ishrat Khatun.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners preferred anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 1301 of 2023 before the Court of Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1, Bettiah, West Champaran under section 438 Cr.P.C. which was allowed with certain directions, which is as under:

“In view of the nature of allegation, both have two daughter from this marriage and there is still possibility of reconciliation, this Court would direct that if the petitioners surrenders in the court below within a period of Six weeks from today, and submits an undertaking to this effect that husband is ready to keep the informant with full dignity and decorum as his spouse at the time of his surrender, the court below, after issuing notice to Opposite party i.e. the informant wife will grant provisional bail to the petitioners for a period of three months on sufficient amount of bond on own satisfaction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that imposing such condition of grant of bail only when the husband of the informant is willing to keep her as her legally married wife, amounts to literally rejecting the bail application as it was a categorical case of the petitioner that the husband was not ready to keep the informant. It has been submitted that putting such unreasonable condition wherein there is no control of the petitioners is against the provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned trial court also did not appreciate the fact that it was the informant who was not willing to live with the husband due to mismatch and also against the wishes of the victim.

8. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case only because they happen to be the relatives of the husband of the informant and only with a view to harass the entire family this case was lodged. It has thus been prayed that the condition imposed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-Ist, Bettiah, West Champaran may be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners fu