Read Time: 07 minutes
The appellant's counsel submitted that the marriage had an unusual history, as the appellant was kidnapped by the wife's family and forced into a marriage-like ceremony
The Supreme Court has said that bail conditions should ensure the accused does not evade justice and remains available for trial. Imposing irrelevant conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC is unwarranted, court stressed.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti set aside the Patna High Court's order which directed a man (the appellant) to pay Rs 4,000 per month as maintenance to the woman who claimed to be his wife.
On October 16, 2023, the court issued notice to the state and others on the plea by the appellant challenging the high court's order of July 17, 2023.
The appellant's counsel argued that while a Rs 4,000 monthly maintenance may not be a significant amount, the marriage had a unique history. The counsel stated that the petitioner was abducted by the second respondent's family, who then arranged a marriage-like ceremony.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed the complaint in 2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. The matrimonial suit in 2023 was also filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Purnea seeking annulment of marriage with the second respondent where it was averred that on May 14, 2022, at about 8 am, the petitioner was assaulted and abducted by the family of the girl and they forcibly got the petitioner to join a marriage ritual, by confining him to a closed room under threat and intimidation.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that since it was a forced marriage, he had moved the competent court for annulment of the marriage and the proceedings were pending before Family court, Purnea.
It was also pointed out that the respondent no 2 had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming maintenance from the appellant.
The counsel argued that the high court while considering bail, should not have imposed a pre-condition on the appellant for paying maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month, as was recorded in the impugned order.
The government counsel, in his turn, submitted that the said direction for paying maintenance in the bail order was incorporated only because the appellant’s counsel made the offer to provide maintenance to the informant. This was specifically recorded in the court’s order.
"When application for bail is filed, the court is required to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant for exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not therefore be warranted," the bench said.
The appellant's counsel also relied upon Munish Bhasin and Others Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2009).
"Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the bail condition imposed by the High Court directing the appellant to pay Rupees Four Thousand per month as maintenance to the informant (respondent no 2) was not merited. The same is accordingly set aside and quashed. However, appellant is bound to remain available and face the trial as required by law," the bench said.
Court directed the trial court to impose appropriate bail conditions to facilitate the appellant to remain on bail, while availing bail under the impugned order of July 17, 2023.
Case Title: Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar & Anr
Please Login or Register
