2017 (8) TMI 1645 - SC - Indian Laws

Nature of conditions which may be imposed Under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while granting anticipatory bail - H ELD THAT - It is well settled legal proposition that in interpreting a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act or not) should be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote the object - There is no dispute that Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) allows Courts to impose such conditions in the interest of justice. We are aware that palpably such wordings are capable of accepting broader meaning. But such conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or extend beyond the ends of the provision. The phrase 'interest of justice' as used under the Sub-clause (c) of Section 437(3) means good administration of justice or advancing the trial process and inclusion of broader meaning should be shunned because of purposive interpretation. Coming back to the case at hand, from the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing such arbitrary conditions. Some of the conditions imposed are highly onerous and are absurd. Such onerous anticipatory bail conditions are alien and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The conditions imposed appear to have no nexus with the good administration of justice or advancing the trial process, rather it is an over-zealous exercise in utter disregard to the very purpose of the criminal justice system. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the interim protection granted to the Petitioner by this Court on 07.02.2017 is made absolute - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Nature of conditions under Section 438 of CrPC for granting anticipatory bail.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order passed by the High Court concerning the imposition of onerous conditions while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant challenged the conditions imposed in the order dated 17.05.2017, which confirmed the earlier order granting anticipatory bail with certain conditions. The case stemmed from allegations of dowry demands and torture, leading to the filing of a complaint under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court had directed the petitioner to surrender before the court along with the wife, and imposed conditions related to conjugal relationships, monitoring, and potential cancellation of bail based on the parties' actions.

The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Sections 438 and 437(3). Section 438 allows for the grant of anticipatory bail with conditions, including those under Section 437(3) related to attendance, prevention of similar offenses, and interests of justice. The Court emphasized the need for conditions to be in the interest of justice, promoting the purpose of the Act. While acknowledging the broad scope of "interest of justice," the Court cautioned against arbitrary or fanciful conditions that go beyond the provision's intent.

The Court found that the conditions imposed by the High Court were excessive, arbitrary, and lacked a connection to the administration of justice or trial advancement. The conditions were deemed onerous and unsustainable in the eyes of the law, reflecting an overreach that disregarded the criminal justice system's purpose. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, making the interim protection granted to the petitioner absolute. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of ensuring that conditions for anticipatory bail align with the principles of justice and legal interpretation.