Anticipatory bail conditions cannot compel maintenance payments; such relief must be decided in proper proceedings.

While granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held that conditions must be confined to securing the accused's presence, preventing flight from justice, and avoiding witness intimidation, on the same lines as Section 437(3). A direction requiring payment of maintenance to the wife and child, including arrears, was outside that limited bail jurisdiction because maintenance must ordinarily be determined by the competent court on evidence in appropriate proceedings. The maintenance condition was therefore held excessive and unsustainable and was set aside, while the remaining bail directions were left intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether, while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court could impose a condition directing the accused to pay maintenance to his wife and child, including arrears.

Analysis: The power to impose conditions under Section 438 is confined to conditions that are germane to securing the presence of the accused, preventing flight from justice, preventing inducement or intimidation of witnesses, and other conditions of the kind contemplated by Section 437(3). A condition directing payment of maintenance does not serve those purposes and is not a condition that can properly be attached to anticipatory bail. The question of maintenance must ordinarily be decided by the competent court in appropriate proceedings on evidence, and not as part of bail jurisdiction. The impugned condition was therefore found to be excessive and unwarranted.

Conclusion: The maintenance condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail was not sustainable and was set aside, while the remaining bail directions were kept intact.

---