SC: Courts Must Put Practical Bail Condition, Recognizing the Human Right to Live with Dignity

The Supreme Court, delivering a verdict in a matrimonial dispute, said when the couple who are trying to bridge their emotional differences putting an onerous condition would deprive a dignified life not only to the grantee but to both. The apex court reiterated that courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable.

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has said that it is essential for courts to put compliable conditions while granting bail, recognizing the human right to live with dignity and with a view to secure the presence of the accused as also an unhindered course of investigation, which would ensure a fair trial. The apex court said, in a matrimonial dispute, when the couple who are trying to bridge their emotional differences putting an onerous condition would deprive a dignified life not only to the grantee but to both.

A bench comprising justices C T Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, in a verdict delivered on Friday, cited the maxim ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’, which means ‘the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform’.

Justice Ravikumar, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said this maxim is being followed as an adage and with alacrity and it is painful to see “that despite a catena of decisions deprecating the practice of putting onerous conditions for pre-arrest bail such orders are being passed without giving due regard to the binding precedents”.

The bench set aside the Patna High Court's order which, while granting anticipatory bail to a man, in matrimonial dispute case, fixed "absolutely improbable and impracticable condition".

The bench said as held by this court in Parvez Noordin’s case (2020), the ultimate purpose of putting conditions while granting pre-arrest bail is to secure the presence of the accused and thus, eventually to ensure a fair trial and also for the smooth flow of the investigating process.

The bench said in view of the unfortunate instances imposing very onerous conditions, especially in cases which are nothing but an off-shoot of matrimonial discordance, “we would reiterate the view that courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable”.

Justice Ravikumar said this is to be done warily, especially when the couple concerned who are litigating in divorce proceedings, jointly though lukewarmly, agreed to attempt to reconcile and re-unite.

The bench said the impugned order would reveal that the parties who were about to part company, rethought and expressed their readiness to bury the hatchet and to reunite and the appellant has also agreed to withdraw the divorce case.

“One should not be oblivious of the fact that a boy or girl, will be bonded to kith and kin besides parents and siblings and such bonded relationships cannot be severed solely due to affine and affinity towards the affinal as also cognate relationships has to be taken forward with same cordialness”, said the bench.

Justice Ravikumar stressed that relation through marriage sans support from both the families may not flourish but may perish. “Viewed from any angle, putting conditions as has been done in this case, requiring a person to give an affidavit carrying a specific statement in the form of an undertaking that he would fulfil all physical as well as financial requirements of the other spouse so that she could lead a dignified life without interference of any of the family members of the appellant, can only be described as an absolutely improbable and impracticable condition”, he said.

The bench noted that the wife may not misuse such a condition but giving such a carte blanche, is nothing but making one dominant over the other, which in no way acts as a catalyst to create a comely situation in domesticity. “On the contrary, such conditions will only be counterproductive. There can be no doubt that a reunion after a marital discord is possible only if the parties are put to a conducive situation to regain the mutual respect, mutual love and affection”, said the bench.

Justice Ravikumar stressed that when the couple who are trying to bridge their emotional differences putting one among them under such an onerous condition would deprive a dignified life not only to the grantee but to both. “It is to be noted that with the said conditions the appellant was granted only a provisional bail”, he said.

“We stress upon the need to put compliable conditions while granting bail, recognizing the human right to live with dignity and with a view to secure the presence of the accused as also an unhindered course of investigation, ultimately to ensure a fair trial”, said the bench.

The bench said in respect of matters relating to matrimonial cases, conditions shall be put in such a way to make the grantee of the bail as also the griever to regain the lost love and affection and to come back to peaceful domesticity. The bench noted that in this case, the parties, obviously, expressed their desire and willingness to live together and in that regard the appellant-husband, expressed his willingness to withdraw the divorce case.