Judgment : 1. In C.R.R. No. 228 of 2010, C.R.R. No. 324 of 2010 and C.R.R. No. 368 of 2010, the subject matter of challenge, are the orders passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Malda, whereby the Learned Judge while granting bail to the accuseds/husbands in connection with those cases, relating to the matrimonial offences, punishable under Sections 498A/494/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, directed them to pay maintenance to their respective wives. Whereas, in C.R.R. No. 373 of 2010 and in C.R.R. No. 4589 of 2009, the order of granting anticipatory bail by the self-same Court in connection with the cases relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, were under challenge on the ground while in the first case the husband was directed to maintain his wife, in the next case similar order was passed whereby the brother-in-law, i.e. the “Debor” was directed to maintain his sister-in-law, i.e. the “Boudi”. Similarly, C.R.R. No. 551 of 2010 arises out of an order passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Malda, where bail was granted to the petitioners, in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/448/379/436 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the condition of surrender of their respective Voter Identity Cards and Ration Cards and in C.R.R. No. 409 of 2010 an order passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kandi, granting bail to the petitioner in connection with a case relating to offences punishable under Sections 279/304/427 of the Indian Penal Code, was challenged on the ground the petitioner was directed to surrender his Driving License and it was directed till the disposal of the case he shall not be permitted to drive his vehicle. Lastly, in C.R.R. No. 770 of 2010 the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta, where the Learned Judge in granting bail to the petitioner in connection with a case relating to offence punishable under Sections 406/420/506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, directed him to repay the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs. 3,08,000/- to the defacto-complainant within a week from the date of his release. 3,08,000/- to the defacto-complainant within a week from the date of his release. Furthermore, in all the aforesaid cases where the petitioners were enlarged on bail it was directed on their failure to comply with the impugned conditions their bail shall stand cancelled automatically and in cases where the petitioners were enlarged on anticipatory bail, the regular Court, i.e. the Courts of the respective Magistrate shall release them on regular bail upon their surrender in Court, if they fulfilled the condition subject to which the anticipatory bail was granted to them. 2. Heard Mr. Sanat Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner while Mr. Abhijit Addya, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 228 of 2010. Mr. Mosaraf Alam Sk., learned advocate for the petitioner while Mr. Sobhendu Sekhar Roy, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 324 of 2010. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned advocate for the petitioner while Ms. Minati Gomes, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 368 of 2010. Mr. Bipul Kumar Mondal, learned advocate for the petitioners while Mr. Swapan Kumar Mondal, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 4589 of 2009. Mr. Iresh Pal, learned advocate for the petitioner while Ms. Jharna Biswas, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 373 of 2010. Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, learned advocate for the petitioners while Ms. Parul Banerjee, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 551 of 2010. Mr. Arijit Dey, learned advocate for the petitioner while Mr. Kashem Ali Ahmed, learned advocate for the State in C.R.R. No. 409 of 2010 and Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjan Roy, learned advocate for the State and Mr. Amartha Ghosh, learned advocate for the defactocomplainant in connection with the C.R.R. No. 770 of 2010. Besides in C.R.R. No. 770 of 2010, in all other cases, in spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the defactocomplainant. The affidavit of service are with the records. 3. According to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused can be released on bail subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code and similarly be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and subsection (3) of Section 437 of the Code. 4. 3. According to the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused can be released on bail subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code and similarly be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and subsection (3) of Section 437 of the Code. 4. Now, under sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code the following conditions may be imposed; (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this chapter. (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence, and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary. 5. Whereas according to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code, when the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction for release of an accused in the event of his arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence the Court may impose the following conditions; (i) The person shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required. (ii) The person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iii) The person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) As may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code, as if the bail were granted under that section. 6. (iii) The person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) As may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code, as if the bail were granted under that section. 6. Thus, it is now absolutely clear from the aforesaid provisions that whole object behind imposition of aforesaid conditions is to secure the presence of the accused before the Investigating Officer as well as before the Court during his trial and to exclude the possibilities of tampering with the evidence by such accused and to prevent him from misusing his liberty either by inducing or intimidating the persons, viz., the witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing the truth to the police or to the Court. The other object is to exclude the likelihood of the absconsion of the accused and to prevent him from misusing his liberty of bail by indulging in the commission of similar type of offences or other offences and in order to ensure the same, an accused may also be directed to report to the Investigating Officer of the case on regular interval. Similarly, where in a case consequent upon the commission of any offences a serious commotion is prevailing in the locality or the free movement of an accused would create reasonable apprehension of interference with the course of investigation, in such cases the movement of the accused may also be restricted by imposing necessary conditions. Thus, the whole object is one and only one to prevent the accused from interfering or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice and to prevent him from abusing the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 7. However, by a long catena of decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court have repeatedly held that as a condition of bail no person accused of matrimonial offences can be directed to pay maintenance to the wife nor an accused in a case of cheating or criminal breach of trust can be directed to pay back the alleged misappropriated amount to the defacto-complainant. At the same time it needs no debate, when an accused charged with the commission of non-bailable offences, approaches a Court either for bail or anticipatory bail, the Court undoubtedly possesses powers either to allow such prayer or to reject the same, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, viz., the seriousness of offences, the impact of such offence upon the society at large, the conduct of the accused his chances of repeating similar offence, chances of abscontion and the stake involved etc. 8. The right of the wife to be maintained by her husband and the liability of the husband to maintain his wife depends on many factors and the same has to be determined by a competent Court in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. By a Criminal Court in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or by a Civil Court in a matrimonial proceedings. This is strange that in one of the above cases, the brother-in-law, i.e., the “Debor” has also been directed to maintain his “Boudi”, i.e., the sister-inlaw that too without determining his liability and her entitlement. Neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the matrimonial laws create any obligation on the part of the “Debor” to maintain his sister-in-law. The conditions so imposed are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Similarly, while granting bail the Court has no jurisdiction to impose the condition upon an accused to surrender his Election Photo Identity Card or Ration Card. Not only the said documents are the proof of citizenship, while the Election Photo Identity Card is essential to exercise right of franchise by a citizen, the Ration Card is essential for any person below the poverty line to have his basic sustenance, at a subsidised rate. Those are the integral part of the basic human rights. Top of everything those two documents are no way connected with the commission of the alleged offences. The conditions so imposed are wholly illegal and absolutely without jurisdiction. Similar is the position as regards to the order of depositing of the Driving License of an accused as the condition of bail is concerned. Top of everything those two documents are no way connected with the commission of the alleged offences. The conditions so imposed are wholly illegal and absolutely without jurisdiction. Similar is the position as regards to the order of depositing of the Driving License of an accused as the condition of bail is concerned. The Driving License of a person can be suspended or revoked by the licensing authority in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but certainly not by a Court, which before trial considering the question of granting bail to an accused. A Court while exercising his power under Section 438 or 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, similarly is not empowered to act as a recovery agent. The Criminal Court has every power certainly after trial to hold an accused guilty of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust and imposed appropriate sentence and may make an order for payment of compensation but it is for the Civil Court to adjudicate the liability of a person and to enforce the same. Therefore, in the aforesaid cases the Court belows have over-stepped its jurisdiction by imposing those conditions. In a proceeding under Section 438 or under Section 439 of the Code the Court is not justified in awarding maintenance to the wife or to sister-in-law or directing the accused to deposit his Voter Identity Card or Ration Card or Driving License or to make an order for return of the alleged misappropriated amount. Those cannot be the conditions precedent for granting anticipatory bail or a regular bail. In this regard it would be more apposite to refer the following decisions of the Apex Court, in the case of Mahesh Chand Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 23, Jagtar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 208, Shyam Singh Vs. State Through CBI, reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 613, Geetha & Anr. Vs. State of T.N., reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 327, Munish Bhasin & Ors. Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 56, Sk. Ayub Vs. The State of M.P., reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 336, Manjoor Khan Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1541, M. Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 56, Sk. Ayub Vs. The State of M.P., reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 336, Manjoor Khan Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1541, M. Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of T. N., reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1142, Sohan Lal Juneja & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 90. 9. Furthermore, it is a settled law an order of anticipatory bail, i.e. an order of pre-arrest bail must always be for a limited period and the question of bail is left with the discretion of the regular Court, who is to deal with the matter upon appreciation of the evidence placed before it. An order of anticipatory bail and conditions subject to which same has been granted comes to an end as soon as the accused surrenders before the regular Court and is taken into custody. Accordingly, a Court granting anticipatory bail cannot pass any order directing the regular Court to release the accused on regular bail upon his surrender in Court on whatever condition. It appears that in some of the cases the Learned Judge has directed the regular Court to release the accused on regular bail upon their surrender in Court which is also wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In this regard it would be more apposite to refer the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 435, Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 933. 10. This Court has further found the Learned Judge has directed the order of bail or anticipatory bail would automatically be stand cancelled on the failure of the accused to comply with the condition of bail which is also not in accordance with law. An order of anticipatory bail or an order of regular bail cannot be cancelled without affording the necessary opportunity of hearing to an accused, otherwise same would be a clear violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard it would be more apposite to refer the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr., reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 814. 11. In this regard it would be more apposite to refer the following decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee Vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr., reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 814. 11. For the reasons stated above, all the aforesaid criminal revisions stand allowed and the impugned conditions of bail as well as the anticipatory bail stand set aside. So far as the conditions, imposed by the Court below directing the respective petitioners to maintain their wives as well as the brother-in-law, i.e., Debor to maintain his sister-in-law and the condition of surrendering the Voter Identity Card or Ration Card or Driving License and to pay back the alleged misappropriated money to the complainant all stands set aside. 12. Before concluding, this Court finds it is absolutely necessary that the Learned Judges be well advised to know neither they have any jurisdiction, nor legally empowered to impose the conditions as aforesaid while granting bail or anticipatory bail. It is also beyond jurisdiction while granting anticipatory bail to direct the regular Court to confirm the bail after the petitioner surrenders in Court subject to any conditions. Accordingly, the Learned Registrar General of this Court is directed to bring this order to the notice of the particular Judges, who used to pass such orders. If it is found they are not posted at the same place in the same position then in that case this order be communicated to them wherever they are now posted. 13. I make it clear, wherever the petitioners have been enlarged on bail except quashment of the conditions subject to which they were granted bail the order of bail shall remain unaltered, unless the same in future are cancelled in accordance with law. However, where the petitioners have been enlarged on anticipatory bail such order shall remain operative till four weeks, the reopening of this Hon’ble Court after Puja Vacation, in the meantime if the petitioners surrender before the regular Court and prays for bail, their such prayer be considered by the regular Court in accordance with law and without being in anyway swayed by the order of granting anticipatory bail. Needless to mention the Learned Court below is not expected to decline to release the petitioner on bail unless further implicating materials are available against the accused persons far from those on the basis of which they were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. Criminal Section is directed to deliver urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgement to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.