Pre-arrest bail conditions can't be impossible, impracticable to comply: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that when a court comes to a conclusion that bail can be granted to an accused, conditions should not be put to make it impossible and impracticable to comply with.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra said putting conditions like requiring a person to give an affidavit that he would fulfil all physical as well as financial requirements of the wife so that she could lead a dignified life without interference of any of the family members of the man can only be described as an "absolutely improbable and impracticable condition".

The court said it was pained 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 court pointed out that 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 the smooth flow of the investigating process.

The court set aside the Patna High Court's order which, while granting pre-arrest bail to a man in a matrimonial dispute case, fixed those conditions like he would fulfill all physical and financial needs of the wife without interference from any family member.

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

In respect of matters relating to matrimonial cases, conditions should 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 court added.

"Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable. 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 court noted the HC's order itself 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.

In the case, the bench said, the wife may not misuse such a condition. "However, giving such a carte blanche, is nothing but making one dominant over the other, which in no way act as a catalyst to create a comely situation in domesticity. On the contrary, such conditions will only be counterproductive," the bench said.

The bench said 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.