Provisional anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely because matrimonial harmony remains unrestored absent petitioner’s fault.

The informant, Vibha Devi, alleged that her husband, Babloo Sharma, had contracted a second marriage, subjected her to cruelty, failed to provide maintenance, threatened her, and that his family members assaulted her and removed her ornaments. The case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner was granted provisional anticipatory bail by the High Court on 13 April 2015 on the basis of his undertaking that he had not contracted a second marriage and was willing to keep the informant as his wife with dignity and honour.

The order provided that the provisional bail would be confirmed if: (i) matrimonial harmony was substantially restored; (ii) the informant failed to appear before the court; or (iii) the informant became reluctant to reconcile.

The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for confirmation of bail on 24 September 2018.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that the finding regarding non-restoration of matrimonial harmony was unjustified because the informant was residing at the matrimonial home due to her employment as an Anganbari Sevika, while the petitioner ordinarily resided at Jadugora, Jamshedpur, in connection with his work.

Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in refusing to confirm the petitioner’s provisional anticipatory bail on the ground that matrimonial harmony had not been substantially restored?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the rejection order and confirm the petitioner’s provisional bail?

The Court applied the conditions governing anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as incorporated in the original provisional-bail order.

It treated the specific conditions imposed by the High Court—substantial restoration of matrimonial harmony, failure of the informant to appear, or reluctance of the informant to reconcile—as the governing framework for confirmation of bail.

The Court further exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to prevent unjustified denial of bail and to secure the ends of justice.

The High Court found that refusal to confirm bail solely because matrimonial harmony had not been substantially restored was not convincing in the circumstances.

The informant was residing at the matrimonial village because of her employment and was living there with her adult son, whereas the petitioner ordinarily resided at his workplace in Jadugora, Jamshedpur.

Although the informant asserted that the petitioner ought to visit the paternal home, the Court held that the circumstances did not justify attributing the failure to restore matrimonial harmony exclusively to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Magistrate’s non-confirmation of provisional bail under the first condition was held to be unsustainable.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, the Court confirmed the petitioner’s provisional bail bond with the same bailor and bond until disposal of the criminal case.

The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law, considering that the case dated back to 2014.