The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that conditioning the grant of pre-arrest bail on the accused resuming conjugal life with his wife is improper and not permissible under the law. The Court set aside an order by the Jharkhand High Court that had imposed such a condition, remanding the matter for fresh consideration on its merits.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih on July 29, 2025, in the case of Anil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Summary of the Case
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a judgment and order dated February 25, 2025, from the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The High Court had granted pre-arrest bail to the appellant, Anil Kumar, on the condition that he “resumes conjugal life with his wife, i.e. respondent no.2 herein, and maintains her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife.” The Supreme Court overturned this conditional order, stating that bail applications must be decided on their own merits and any conditions imposed must be traceable to Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC).
Background of the Dispute
The appellant, Anil Kumar, was named as an accused in Ranchi Mahila Police Station Case No. 11 of 2024. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 313 (causing miscarriage without woman’s consent), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), 307 (attempt to murder), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). Additionally, charges were filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Faced with these allegations, the appellant moved the High Court of Jharkhand seeking pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail. The High Court granted his plea but attached the condition that he must resume his marital life with his wife, the complainant (respondent no. 2). Aggrieved by this specific condition, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The counsel for the respondent-wife (respondent no. 2) submitted that the appellant could not challenge the condition as he had jointly submitted before the High Court his willingness to resume conjugal life.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court bench, after hearing the parties, disagreed with the approach taken by the High Court. The Court observed that the primary consideration for a court in a pre-arrest bail application is to assess whether the discretionary relief is deserved based on settled legal parameters.
The bench stated that while a court has the power to impose conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.PC, such conditions must be legally sound. The Court held that the condition of resuming conjugal life was not one that ought to have been imposed. The judgment noted:
“While considering the application for pre-arrest bail of the appellant, the Court ought to have assessed whether the discretionary relief sought by the appellant for pre-arrest bail deserved to be granted within the settled parameters; if yes, conditions which are traceable to Section 438(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be imposed, but a condition such as the one impugned before us ought to have been imposed…”
The Court referred to its previous decisions in Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 196 and Munish Bhasin v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 4 SCC 45 to support its reasoning.
Addressing the respondent’s argument that the appellant had agreed to the condition, the Court acknowledged this fact but with a crucial distinction. It observed, “Learned counsel is partly right in the sense that the appellant had indeed agreed to resume conjugal life. However, the respondent no.2 insisted for imposition of a further condition to which we do not find the appellant to have agreed.”
The bench further highlighted the practical difficulties and potential for future disputes arising from such a condition. It stated:
“Imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the respondent no.2 with dignity and honour is beset with risk in that it can generate further litigation. An application for cancellation of bail on the ground that such condition has not been complied with, if filed later, is bound to meet opposition from the appellant and could place the High Court in further difficulty. The High Court could find itself disabled to decide a disputed question of fact, in an application for pre-arrest bail.”
Based on this reasoning, the Court concluded that the High Court should have decided the bail application purely on its merits.
The Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and passed the following orders:
- The impugned judgment and order of the Jharkhand High Court dated February 25, 2025, was set aside.
- The anticipatory bail application (A.B.A. No. 4200 of 2024) was restored to the file of the High Court.
- The High Court was requested to decide the application “afresh on its own merits, as early as possible.”
- The interim protection from arrest granted to the appellant by the Supreme Court on April 3, 2025, will continue until the High Court passes a final order.
