When a court finds pre-arrest bail grantable, especially in cases that are off-shoots of matrimonial discordance, it should exercise caution while imposing bail conditions, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
The apex court also said it was pained to see that despite a catena of verdicts deprecating the practice of putting onerous conditions for pre-arrest bail, such orders were being passed without giving due regard to the binding precedents.
These observations by the Supreme Court came in a verdict that set aside a condition imposed by the Patna High Court while granting provisional pre-arrest bail to a man in a case lodged for offences, including those under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
A top court bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and P K Mishra stressed the need to put compliable conditions while granting bail, “recognising the human right to live with dignity and with a view to secure the presence of the accused as also unhindered course of investigation, ultimately to ensure a fair trial”.
The high court, considering the desire of the parties involved, had directed them to file a joint affidavit before the trial court stating they had agreed to live together. It also said that the petitioner must give a specific statement undertaking to fulfil all physical and financial requirements of the complainant so that she could lead a dignified life without any interference from any of his family members.
“We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment by multiplying the authorities on this subject as the constant and consistent view of this court on matters granting a prayer for bail… is that after forming an opinion, taking note of all relevant aspects, that bail is grantable, conditions shall not be put to make it impossible and impracticable for the grantee to comply with,” the Supreme Court bench said.
“In view of the unfortunate instances imposing very onerous conditions, especially in cases which are nothing but an off-shoot of matrimonial discordance, we would reiterate the view that courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable,” it added.
The bench said the high court’s order revealed that the parties, who were about to part ways, re-thought and expressed their readiness to bury the hatchet and reunite.
“Relation through marriage sans support from both the families may not flourish but may perish,” it said.
The bench also said that putting such conditions, as has been done in this case, can only be described as “absolutely improbable and impracticable”.
Observing that such conditions will only be counter-productive, it said, “There can be no doubt that a re-union after a marital discord is possible only if the parties are put to a conducive situation to regain the mutual respect, mutual love and affection.”
“When the couple who are trying to bridge their emotional differences, putting one among them under such an onerous condition would deprive a dignified life not only to the grantee but to both,” it said.
The apex court said in matters relating to matrimonial cases, conditions shall be put in such a way as to make the grantee bail as well the griever to regain the lost love and affection and to come back to peaceful domesticity.
“In this case, the parties, obviously, expressed their desire and willingness to live together and in that regard, the appellant-husband, expressed his willingness to withdraw the divorce case,” it said, adding, “… the said conditions to give an undertaking that the appellant would fulfil all physical and financial requirements by way of an affidavit are set aside.”
The bench, which made the order granting bail absolute, expressed hope that the couple will continue striving to restore their domesticity.
