The Jharkhand High Court\’s decision to require a deposit of a demand draught for Rs. 10 lakhs as ad interim victim compensation in favor of the accused\’s wife as a condition of anticipatory bail has recently been overturned by the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, stating,\”..we find no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs to avail the benefit of pre-arrest bail…\”
After the High Court passed the decision in favor of the wife in a dowry harassment case for offenses under Section 498A and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the husband made an appeal to the apex court. While hearing the appeal, the apex court found that the High Court ordered the appellant-husband to give the complainant \”victim compensation\” as an interim measure by means of the contested order, in which it exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As a result, the appeal is granted, and the High Court\’s judgment requiring the appellant to pay a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs is accordingly revoked.
The Supreme Court has recently set aside a decision of the Jharkhand High Court to impose a precondition for anticipatory bail that the accused would have to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 lakhs as ad interim victim compensation in favour of his wife. This appeal arose out of a dowry harassment case in which the complainant had instituted a criminal complaint against her husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was later converted into a first information report, for offences under Section 498A and other ancillary provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
By the impugned order, the High Court had exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the appellant-husband to pay the complainant \’victim compensation\’ as an interim measure. The Division Bench, allowing the appeal preferred by the accused, held that there was \”no reasonable justification\” for the High Court to incorporate such a condition while granting the husband pre-arrest bail. The Bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, held –
\”After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs.10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs is hereby set aside.\”
Case Title
Ravikant Srivastava @ Ravi Kant Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1803/2022 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1771/2022]
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 877
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) – Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Accused cannot be made to pay ad interim victim compensation by the High Court in the exercise of their inherent powers as a precondition to get anticipatory bail without reasonable justification – Held, there was no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail – Appeal allowed.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ad-interim-victim-compensation-s498a-ipc-dowry-prohibition-act-bail-212577