Supreme Court Sets Aside ₹10 Lakh Deposit Condition for Anticipatory Bail in 498A Case
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that a condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court, requiring a husband to deposit ₹10 lakhs for anticipatory bail in a Section 498A IPC case, was unjustified and unreasonable.
A bench consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar was hearing an appeal by the husband, Ravikant Srivastava, who challenged the bail condition set by the High Court. The condition stated that to obtain pre-arrest bail, he had to deposit a Demand Draft of ₹10 lakhs as ad-interim compensation in favor of his wife (Respondent No. 2).
The case arose after the wife filed a criminal complaint, which was converted into an FIR under Sections 498A, 120B, 323, 324 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The husband, who had already filed for divorce, moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail, since the offences listed were non-cognizable.
However, the High Court granted bail on the condition that he must pay ₹10 lakhs upfront, which the husband challenged in the Supreme Court.
After reviewing the case, the top Court found no valid reason for making such a financial deposit a condition for bail.
“We find no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a Demand Draft of ₹10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail,” the Supreme Court stated.
The Court then allowed the appeal and set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order.
This decision reinforces the principle that monetary compensation cannot be made a prerequisite for anticipatory bail, especially when criminal proceedings are still ongoing, and guilt is not yet proven.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
