Modifying Patna High Court's conditional bail, Supreme Court says, "bail conditions could not be such, which would tantamount to execution of the maintenance order"

In Basu Das vs. The State of Bihar and Others (2024), Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan of Patna High Court dealt with a case wherein the petitioner apprehended his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 498A was incorporated in the IPC in the year 1983 to provide for adequate punishment for any cruelty inflicted on a married woman by the husband and his relatives. The punishment is imprisonment for three years and fine. The offence is cognizable as well as non-bailable. Section 34 states that “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone”. The other respondent is Suhagi Devi. 

The petitioner, who is husband of complainant, was accused of having assaulted her and also ousted her from the matrimonial home in association of his family members over the dowry demand. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has committed no offence. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court in the case of Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 182.

On January 15, 2024, Justice Sharan's order reads: "In that view of the matter, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail....subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C." The order reads: "Petitioner is ready to pay Rs.3000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand) per month to the complainant in the second week of every month. If the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount on two consecutive months, informant/complainant shall be at liberty to move before the learned Court below for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. It goes without saying that the aforesaid payment shall be subject to any order being passed in matrimonial maintenance case or any other collateral proceedings." He directed that the complainant "to furnish the bank account details of the complainant in the learned Court below. If she fails to furnish the same, the aforesaid amount will be deposited in the learned Court below which will be released in favour of the complainant after she furnishes her bank account details. If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the learned Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Center for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement." 

The Supreme Court heard the appeal which arose out of Justice Sharan's judgment and order whereby, he had granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, in connection with the case filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Katihar, Bihar for the offence punishable under Section-498A read with Section-34 of the IPC, had imposed a condition. The complainant's counsel submitted that the appellant is not making any payment towards her maintenance though the concerned Court has passed the order for maintaining her, and though the respondent no.2, the complainant filed the execution proceedings in that regard. 

The Court observed: "However, in our opinion, while granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, such punitive condition of making payment for maintaining the respondent no.2-complainant, could not have been passed by the High Court. It is needless to say that the bail conditions could not be such, which would tantamount to execution of the maintenance order." The Supreme Court's order reads:"In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,we are inclined to accept the present appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the present appellant." The Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order on December 17, 2024.