The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in exercising the power of arrest in matrimonial matters, as emphasized by the Apex Court, and the importance of attempting reconciliation before resorting to arrest.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant, Sri Shyamal Malakar in respect of FIR No.0005 of 2016 registered with Police Station Pecharthal against the applicant under Section 498A IPC.

2. The applicant had moved the Sessions Judge, Unakoti, Kailashahar for grant of bail but he has rejected the bail application and while doing so he has observed as follows:

“***I have carefully perused the CD produced by the I/O and also considered the progress of the investigation.

This is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, where the husband, an employee of the Govt., has been trying to show her supremacy upon her innocent wife, who has been taking care of the two children. It is a fact that at this stage the merit of the case should not be discussed, but it appears that it is only the husband, i.e., the accused-petitioner, who can bring peace in the family by giving up his alleged illicit relationship with another woman and in that case, the poor and innocent wife may not proceed further to take revenge against the husband. It is the duty of the court to see that matrimonial dispute, if arisen, should not be allowed to be continued further and if possible, the cause of dispute should be encouraged to be removed for the purpose of re-union.

In this case, it is the allegation that the accused-petitioner, Shri Shyamal Malakar, has been trying to maintain illicit relationship with another woman and one day he was also caught red handed by the local people with the help of the police of Kumarghat police station and if it is true, the dispute between the husband and the wife cannot come to an end and if the accused-petitioner is encouraged by this Court to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, the effort or process of re-union cannot succeed, rather the accused-petitioner will be encouraged to maintain the present illegal act I am not sure at this stage whether there is any demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by the accused-petitioner upon her wife, Smti. Sikha Rani Malakar, but it appears that the accused-petitioner must be having illicit relationship with another lady and perhaps this must be the cause of dispute between the husband and the wife. From the CD, it appears that the investigation is in progress and so, at this stage, I am not inclined to pass any Order directing the concerned police authority to release the accused-petitioner As dictated on bail in the event of his arrest,****”

3. I am clearly of the view that the learned Sessions Judge should have avoided making the observations made therein. At the stage of grant of bail, the learned Sessions Judge was not go into the merits whether the applicant had an illicit relationship or not?

4. On the one hand, the learned Sessions Judge says that at this stage he is not go into the merits of the case but at a later stage he says that “if the accused-petitioner is encouraged by this Court to be released on bail then in the event of his arrest the effort or process of re-union cannot succeed.” I do not agree with this finding of the learned Sessions Judge. If a husband is sent to jail on the basis of a complaint of a wife there can be no chances of re-union. There are chances of re-union only if bail is granted and efforts are made for reconciliation between the parties. Once a spouse or his relatives are sent behind bars then the chances of reconciliation disappear. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge that in case bail is granted then there will be no reconciliation in my view is totally uncalled for.

5. Furthermore, the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the Judgment of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 wherein the Apex Court in respect of offences under Section 498 IPC held as follows:

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in