Regular bail granted after complainant-wife withdrew matrimonial proceedings and declined to pursue the criminal case.

The applicant, Vijay Kumar, sought bail in FIR No. 91/2025 dated 28 January 2025, registered at Police Station Dwarka South, under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution arose from a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and his wife, during which an altercation allegedly occurred in the Court premises and the applicant attacked his wife.

The applicant was arrested on the date of the incident, i.e., 28 January 2025, and asserted that he had no prior involvement in any other incident.

He had previously filed six bail applications before the Trial Court, four of which were withdrawn and two dismissed.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant-wife withdrew the matrimonial cases, including the divorce and guardianship proceedings, and stated that she did not wish to pursue the criminal case.

She further expressed her intention to resume cohabitation with the applicant and referred to their 11-year-old son.

The State did not oppose the grant of bail.

Whether the applicant should be released on regular bail in FIR No. 91/2025 under Section 109(1) BNS, considering the matrimonial nature of the dispute, the complainant’s unwillingness to pursue the case, and the absence of any prior incident involving the applicant?

Whether bail should be granted subject to appropriate conditions to secure the applicant’s presence, prevent interference with the proceedings, and protect the integrity of the investigation and trial?

The Court considered the application under Section 438 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in relation to the offence alleged under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The governing bail principle applied was the Court’s discretionary assessment of the overall facts and circumstances, including the nature of the dispute, the applicant’s arrest and custody, the absence of prior involvement, the complainant’s position, and the State’s stance.

Bail was made subject to conditions requiring appearance before the Trial Court, disclosure of residential and mobile-phone details, regular reporting to the police station, non-interference with witnesses or evidence, and abstention from further offences.

The Court treated the dispute as arising from a matrimonial relationship and noted that the applicant had been arrested on the date of the incident, with no previous incident attributed to him.

It gave material consideration to the complainant’s voluntary statement that she had withdrawn the matrimonial proceedings, did not wish to pursue the criminal case, and intended to resume matrimonial life with the applicant.

The State also expressed no objection to bail.

On the cumulative assessment of these circumstances, the Court found the case fit for release on bail, while safeguarding the proceedings through conditions relating to attendance, residence, communication with the Investigating Officer, weekly police reporting, non-tampering with evidence, and future lawful conduct.

The release was made subject to conditions including appearance on every hearing date, disclosure of permanent and current addresses, maintenance of an operative mobile number, reporting to the jurisdictional police station every Monday at 9:00 a.m., non-inducement or intimidation of witnesses and non-tampering with evidence, and refraining from committing any offence during the period of release.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail determination and would not affect the merits of the trial.