Supreme Court Overrules High Court’s Bail Condition Requiring Man to Resume Marital Relations

The Supreme Court invalidated a bail condition that required an accused to resume marital relations with his wife under the grant of anticipatory bail. Jharkhand High Court order imposing this personal condition, stating that such mandates violated legal norms.

Supreme Court Overrules High Court’s Bail Condition Requiring Man to Resume Marital Relations with his wife under the grant of anticipatory bail. A bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih struck down a Jharkhand High Court order imposing this personal condition, stating that such mandates violated legal norms.

Background: Bail with Conditions Tied to Marital Relations

The accused faced charges including cruelty under Section 498A IPC and attempted murder. The Jharkhand High Court granted him anticipatory bail but imposed a condition: he must resume marital relations with his wife and maintain her with dignity. He later challenged this order in the Supreme Court on the ground that the condition exceeded the scope of Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

Court Reasoning: Personal Conditions Are Unjustifiable

The Supreme Court held that marital relations cannot be judicially mandated as a bail condition. The Court observed: “[While the husband may have agreed to resume cohabitation], imposing a condition of marital relations exceeds legal authority and invites further litigation.” The judges emphasized that Section 438(2) does not permit such moral or personal obligations.

They clarified that such conditions introduce private matters into criminal process. Courts must restrict conditions to bail-specific concerns like evidence tampering and securing attendance. The Court noted that forcing marital relations infringes upon bodily autonomy, privacy, and freedom of choice—principles under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Order: Bail Continues, Case Referred Back

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s conditional order, and transferred the anticipatory bail application back for fresh adjudication. Importantly, the bail will continue on existing terms until the High Court decides the matter on its merits.

The Court made clear that marital relations and family matters should not intrude into criminal law procedure. The review must focus strictly on legal merit.

Wider Implications: Liberty and Legal Boundaries

This ruling reinforces the limits of judicial power in imposing personal obligations under bail. It clarifies that marital relations issues belong to civil or matrimonial forums—not criminal bail hearings.

The Court reiterated a guiding principle: bail should not be a tool of coercion or moral enforcement. It reaffirmed that courts must uphold personal rights in criminal proceedings and avoid overreach into private life.

By striking down the forced inclusion of marital relations in bail conditions, the Supreme Court upheld the foundational principle that liberty and dignity must guide criminal justice—not forced domestic arrangements.

Case details: [Anil Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 4862 of 2025]