The Supreme Court in the case Kunal Choudhary vs. The State Of Jharkhand observed while granting the anticipatory bail to the accused husband as stated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, the same cannot be imposed.
The Division bench comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the present case.
In the present case, the accused husband i.e., the appellant had applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Bench. Thus, the High Court in the case had had granted bail to the husband, it imposed a peculiar condition.
The court observed that the husband was required to take his wife to his home and maintain her with dignity and honor.
The court directed the petitioner to surrender in the Court within six weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrendering, he will be enlarged on bail in order to satisfy the trial court that the petitioner has taken the opposite party no.2 to his house at Bandra locality of Ranchi and keeping and maintaining her with full dignity and honor as his lawful wife.
However, the husband again approached the High Court, wherein he prayed for modification of the above order.
The husband contended in the plea moved that he had hired a house and was ready to maintain his wife.
On the other hand, the wife contended that she was willing to resume her marital life provided that her husband joined her in their own house.
The High Court in the case observed and has dismissed the plea that the appellant is resolute in not resuming his life with his wife at his own house. The high court in the case held that the adamant attitude of the appellant in not resuming the conjugal life with the opposite party No.2 in the house of the appellant, where the opposite party No.2 was staying, the petition moved by him could not be considered.
Therefore, the matter travelled to the Apex Court wherein the court opined that such a condition cannot be imposed while granting anticipatory bail. Thus, the said condition should not be a reason for rejecting the appellant’s petition.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that neither such options should have been imposed by the High Court while granting an anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant.
Accordingly, the court granted the bail to the accused, while setting aside the impugned order.
