‘Risky & Litigious’: SC Sets Aside Bail Condition to Maintain Wife With ‘Dignity and Honour’ in Dowry Case

The Supreme Court has taken exception to a High Court's order, which granted pre-arrest bail to a man in a dowry harassment case with a condition that he would maintain conjugal relations with his wife and maintain her with ''dignity and honour as his lawful wife''.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said imposing a condition that the appellant would maintain the wife with dignity and honour was beset with risk in that it could 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,'' the bench said.

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi by the impugned judgment and order of February 25, 2025, had granted the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail on condition that he would resume conjugal life with his wife, i.e. respondent no.2, and maintain her with dignity and honour as his lawful wife.

The appellant was named as an accused in Ranchi Mahila Police registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Supreme Court said, ''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 not to have been imposed in view of several decisions of this Court".

Court referred to the decisions in Mahesh Chandra Vs State of UP (2006) and Munish Bhasin Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) in this regard.

The counsel for the wife submitted that the appellant, together with the wife, had jointly submitted before the High Court that he was willing to resume his conjugal life; hence, he could not turn around and take a different stand.

Court, however, opined that the counsel was partly right in the sense that the appellant had indeed agreed to resume conjugal life.

"However, the wife insisted for imposition of a further condition to which we do not find the appellant to have agreed. The spouses seemingly, at one point of time, had drifted apart and resided separately for some time,'' the bench said.

Court held that the High Court should have considered the prayer of the appellant for pre-arrest bail entirely on its own merit instead of imposing a condition which is not traceable to Section 438(2), CrPC.

Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order.

It also restored the bail application on the file of the High Court with a request to decide it afresh on its own merits, as early as possible. Till the High Court decides finally in terms of this order, interim protection granted to the appellant by this court on April 3, 2025 would continue, the bench ordered.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr

Judgment Date: July 29, 2025

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih