The Supreme Court recently invalidated a bail condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court in a case involving a husband accused of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The condition required the husband, identified as Rohit Jaiswal, to pay ₹9 lakh as ad-interim compensation to his estranged wife.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti expressed its disagreement with the High Court’s decision to impose such a condition on Rohit Jaiswal. In their order dated September 27, the Supreme Court stated, “We believe that the High Court’s imposition of the condition for Rohit Jaiswal to deposit ₹9,00,000 as ad interim victim compensation was unwarranted. This condition has been removed. We want to emphasize that we have not interfered with the grant of anticipatory bail and other conditions imposed by the High Court.”
These observations and the order were made while resolving appeals filed by the husband against an order of the Jharkhand High Court dating back to April of the previous year. The High Court had, at that time, granted anticipatory bail to the appellant but mandated the payment of ₹9 lakh as ad-interim victim compensation.
In its order, the Supreme Court took note that the husband had agreed to increase the monthly maintenance paid to his wife from ₹4,000 to ₹10,000 per month following a suggestion made by the Court. The Court directed, “The maintenance amount is being raised to ₹10,000 per month based on the statement made by the appellant’s counsel. Rohit Jaiswal will continue to make payments as per the statement. In case of default, the complainant (informant) will have the right to take legal action for execution before the trial court.”
The Supreme Court clarified that the maintenance amount, as determined based on the appellant’s statement, could be adjusted, increased, or reduced by the trial court or appellate court as deemed necessary.