MUNISH BHASIN & ORS. versus STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 806 · Decided: 20-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 806 
A 
MUNISH BHASIN & ORS. 
-.,--~-
v. 
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. 
l..
Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 2009 
•
FEBRUARY 20, 2009 
r 
B 
~ 
[RV. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
...
-t 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Complaint by wife 
c u/s. 498A and s.406 rlw s.34 /PC against husband and his 
parents - Application for anticipatory bail - Grant of, by High 
Court, directing the husband to pay maintenance (both past 
and future) to his wife and child - Justification of - Held: Not 
justified - High Court or Sessions court cannot impose 
D freakish conditions - It can impose conditions stated in s. 438 
~ 
(2) and 437(3) - Any other condition would be beyond 
I 
,,... 
jurisdiction of the power conferred u/s. 438 - Thus, direction 
issued requiring the husband to pay maintenance (both past 
~ 
L
and future) to his wife and child set aside. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether High Court was justified in imposing 
I 
condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 
l 
12,500/- as maintenance (both past and future) to his wife 
I-
), 
I 
and child while granting anticipatory bail to him and his 
"" 
F 
parents with reference to the complaint filed by his wife 
for alleged commission of offences punishable under ss. 
498A and 406 read with s. 34 IPC. 
f 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. While exercising discretion to release an 
accused under Section 438 of the, Code of Criminal 
~. 
Procedure, 1973 neither the High Court nor the Session 
,.,.. 
' 
Court would. be justified in imposing freakish conditions. 
The Court having regard to the facts and circumstances 
H 
806 
MUNISH BHASIN & ORS. V. STATE (GOVT. OF 
807 
N.C.T. OF DELHI) & ANR. 
of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious A 
conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under 
Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot 
be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. The 
conditions which can be imposed by the Court while 
granting anticipatory bail are enumerated in sub-section B 
(2) of Section 438 and sub-section (3) of Section 437 of 
the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed (i) to 
secure the presence of the accused before the 
investigating officer or before the Court, (ii) to prevent him 
from fleeing the course of justice, (iii) to prevent him from C 
tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from 
inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade 
them from disclosing the facts before the police or Court 
or (iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a 
particular area or locality or to maintain law and order etc. 
To subject an accused to any other condition would be D 
beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on Court 
under section 438 of the Code. While imposing conditions 
on an accused who approaches the Court under section 
438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in 
imposing conditions and should not transgress its E 
jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which 
are not called for at all. The conditions to be imposed 
under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous 
or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of 
anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. [Para 8] F 
[811-E; 812-A] 
2. In the instant case, when the High Court had found 
that a case for grant of bail under section 438 was made 
out, it was not open to the Court to direct the appellant to 
pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for past maintenance and a sum of G 
Rs.12,500/- per month as future maintenance to his wife 
and child. In a proceeding under section 438 of the Code, 
the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance 
to the wife and child. The case of the appellant is that his 
wife is employed and receiving a handsome salary and H 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
therefore is not entitled to maintenance. Normally, the 
y---
question of grant of maintenance should be left to be 
decided by the competent Court in an appropriate 
proceedings where the parties can adduce evidence in 
support of their respective case, after which liability of 
B 
husband to pay maintenance could be determined and 
appropriate order would be passed directing the husband 
to pay amount of maintenance to his wife. The record of 
.. 
the instant case indicates that the wife of the appellant 
' 
~ 
has already approached appropriate Court for grant of 
c maintenance 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.