- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
The Supreme Court was faced with an unusual case last week. Perturbed by the restriction imposed on the time period for use of mobile phone as a condition for anticipatory bail, a woman had approached the Court.
She had challenged a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which had imposed the unusual condition for grant of anticipatory bail on a husband-wife duo.
When the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph recently, the Bench observed that these restrictions appeared to have been imposed to seclude the couple and prevent the interference of their parents into the matrimonial affairs of the couple. The Court also went on to observe that a consent order in this regard was recorded.
However, the Counsel for the woman, Advocate Ganesh Khanna told the Court that while the woman is ready to and has no difficulty in making efforts for reconciliation, the restriction pertaining to use of cell-phone is not acceptable. The woman was “perturbed” by this restriction, the Court noted the petitioner’s position.
It was inquired by the Court as to why the woman gave her consent to the imposition of such a restriction. The Counsel went on to submit that no such consent was in fact given. On this ground, the Court granted liberty to the woman to go back to the High Court and argue that the consent to this part of the order was not given.