In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a bail condition imposed on a husband accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The condition required the husband to fulfil all physical and financial needs of his wife. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in Criminal Appeal No. 2024, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2011 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an order dated August 30, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 57492 of 2023. The High Court had granted provisional pre-arrest bail to Sudeep Chatterjee, the appellant, in Complaint Case No. 1100 of 2021. The complaint was filed by his wife, alleging offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court’s bail order included a condition that the appellant must fulfil all physical and financial requirements of his wife through a joint affidavit.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the condition imposed by the High Court was reasonable and practicable. The Supreme Court examined whether such a condition was consistent with the principles of personal liberty and fairness as enshrined in the Constitution and established legal precedents.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, while setting aside the onerous condition, emphasized the legal maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform). The Court noted that the condition imposed by the High Court was impractical and could not be sustained.
Justice C.T. Ravikumar, delivering the judgment, observed:
“The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused, the proper course of investigation, and eventually to ensure a fair trial”.
The Court referred to several precedents, including the landmark case of Shri Gurbakash Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2020), which underscored the need for conditions imposed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to be fair and reasonable.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court made several critical observations regarding the imposition of bail conditions in matrimonial disputes:
– Impractical Conditions: The Court noted that requiring the appellant to fulfil all physical and financial needs of his wife was an “absolutely improbable and impracticable condition” .
– Impact on Marital Relations: The Court highlighted that such conditions could be counterproductive and might not foster a conducive environment for reconciliation between the parties.
– Human Dignity: Emphasizing the importance of human dignity, the Court stated that conditions should not make one party dominant over the other, which could lead to further discord rather than harmony.
Important Observations: “The human right to dignity and the protection of constitutional safeguards should not become illusory by the imposition of conditions which are disproportionate to the need to secure the presence of the accused”.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court made the provisional bail granted to Sudeep Chatterjee absolute, subject to the conditions stipulated by the High Court regarding suretyship and compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court expressed hope that the couple would continue to strive to restore their domestic harmony.
Also Read
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2011 of 2024)
Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Lawyers: Counsel for the appellant, counsel for the State, and counsel for the second respondent
Parties: Sudeep Chatterjee (Appellant) vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Respondents)
