Supreme Court Strikes Down Controversial Bail Condition in Landmark S.498A IPC Case

In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court has declared that a condition mandating a husband to resume conjugal life with his wife cannot be imposed while granting anticipatory bail under Section 498A of the IPC. The decision was handed down by a Division Bench consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The case in question involved an accused husband seeking anticipatory bail in the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Bench. While the High Court granted bail, it attached a peculiar condition requiring the husband to take his wife to his home, maintaining and honoring her with dignity.

The husband, dissatisfied with this condition, approached the High Court for a modification. He asserted that he had secured a separate residence and was prepared to support his wife. However, the wife insisted that she would only resume marital life if her husband joined her in their shared home. The High Court dismissed the husband’s plea, citing his adamant refusal to reunite with his wife at their own residence.

The dispute escalated to the Apex Court, which unequivocally stated that such conditions should not be imposed during anticipatory bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that such conditions should not serve as grounds for rejecting the appellant’s petition.

“In our opinion, neither such condition should have been imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant,” the Court declared.

In a resounding decision, the Supreme Court set aside the contested order and granted bail to the accused in the case of Kunal Choudhary vs. The State of Jharkhand (Diary No.- 14262 – 2023).