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.

Sri Ramanand Ram S.D.J.M, Dalsingsarai, Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd Court, Samastipur must compensate the petitioner: Patna High Court

In Sunil Pandit Vs. State of Bihar, Patna High Court concluded: "As the petitioner was made to suffer a criminal trial which is not maintainable against him and he was compelled to be confined in the correctional home at different points of time. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be compensated since the petitioner was made to suffer the agony and trauma of a criminal trial as well as detention in custody for taking cognizance against him by the learned Magistrate and putting him in trial in a case which is not maintainable against him, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- each payable by the learned Judicial Magistrate, namely, Sri Ramanand Ram, S.D.J.M, Dalsingsarai- Samastipur and Hanuman Prasad Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd Court, Samastipur, on 28th June 2016." 

The penultimate para of the judgement reads: Since the accused/petitioner cannot be booked for committing offence under Sections 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he is acquitted from the charge, set at liberty and released from the liability of bail bond."

In his judgment, Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed: "I am consciously issued the order for payment of compensation directing the concerned Judicial Officers to pay a token amount because in the instant case compensation is not assessed on the basis of the mental agony and trauma and social ignominy suffered by the petitioner due to seer lackadaisical approach of both the courts below. The amount of compensation is fixed as a token to remind the concerned Judicial Officers that before taking cognizance and also during judicial inquiry and trial, it is the bounden and obligatory duty of all the courts to go through the complaint carefully and then to take cognizance and proceed against the accused persons in accordance with law."

The criminal revision was directed against the judgment and order of affirmation passed by the Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd Court at Samastipur on 28th June 2016, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellate Court maintained the order passed by the trial court, of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentence of the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default clause for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

On perusal of the petition of complaint, on the basis of which, Complaint Case No. 172 of 2004 was registered, the Court found that the petitioner was not a relative of the husband of the complainant as provided in Section 498A of the IPC. It is clearly stated by the complainant in page 04 of the complaint that the present petitioner who was arrayed as accused no. 4 was an advisor of other accused persons.

The judgement reads: "Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General, High Court at Patna for information and necessary action intimating the concerned Judicial Officers to comply with this order within three weeks from the date of communication." The Court's direction reads: "The concerned judicial officers are directed to deposit the fine amount in the Criminal Cash Section of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur within three weeks from the date of this order." The judgement was delivered on April 18, 2024.