Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mohammad Wasim Akram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 April, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 8887 OF 2025)
MOHAMMAD WASIM AKRAM APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
JHARKHAND & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-husband is aggrieved by the order dated
04.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand whereby
anticipatory bail granted to him earlier vide an order dated
08.09.2023, has been cancelled.
3. The appellant and respondent No.2 got married on
17.04.2016 as per Sharia law. Certain matrimonial disputes
arose between the parties which compelled respondent No.2-
wife to lodge FIR No.09/2023 dated 09.03.2023 under Sections
498A, 341, 323, 379, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Women Police Station,
District Giridih. The appellant and his family members were
arrayed as accused.
4. Apprehending arrest, the appellant and his co-accused
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
filed anticipatory bail application(s) which were rejected by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2026.04.07
15:20:10 IST
Reason:
the Sessions Court on 22.06.2023. Still aggrieved, the
1
appellant approached the High Court through A.B.A.
No.6374/2023, in which he was granted pre-arrest bail vide
order dated 08.09.2023 subject to the condition that “he
will keep and maintain respondent No.2 with full honour and
dignity as his lawful wife”.
5. It is hardly in dispute that though the appellant
furnished bail bonds and took his wife with him to a rented
accommodation, soon thereafter, he abandoned her at her
parents’ home. As the appellant failed to honour the prior
undertaking given before the High Court, respondent No.2-wife
filed CRMP No.3943/2023 before the High Court seeking
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant
vide order dated 08.09.2023.
6. Consequently, the High Court has vide the impugned order
allowed that application holding that the appellant has
committed fraud upon the Court with dishonest intention and
has misled the Court by making a false undertaking that he
will keep and maintain his wife with full honour and dignity.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.
7. The facts clearly reveal that the appellant made a false
statement before the High Court that he would keep his wife
with him and maintain her with full honour and dignity. He
later on resiled from that undertaking; obviously for the
reason that due to unfortunate matrimonial disputes, the
parties are unable to live together.
2
8. It is also not in dispute that investigation is complete
and chargesheet has already been filed in the aforementioned
FIR. In our view, the appellant, if kept in judicial custody,
will serve no real purpose. It would rather breed even more
hostility between the parties, leaving no scope for amicable
conciliation.
9. Contrary to the same, it seems to us that respondent
No.2-wife deserves to be awarded suitable maintenance to
ensure that she can live a dignified and respectable life.
10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal; set aside the
impugned order and restore the pre-arrest bail granted to the
appellant in the subject-FIR subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The appellant shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.
30,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent No.2-
wife on or before tenth day of each calendar month;
(ii) The appellant shall be liable to pay interim maintenance
to respondent No.2-wife as directed above w.e.f. 01.09.2023,
namely, the month in which he obtained pre-arrest bail order
by making a false statement before the High Court;
(iii) The arrears of interim maintenance shall be paid by
the appellant to respondent No.2-wife within a period of four
months in four equal installments. However, he shall continue
to pay the monthly maintenance on or before tenth day of each
calendar month.
3
11. In case the appellant fails to comply with these
directions, the instant appeal shall be deemed to have been
dismissed. In that event, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
District Giridih is directed to take all lawful coercive
measures including attachment of the property of the
appellant or his family members and if so required, such
property shall be auctioned to recover the arrears of
maintenance payable to the respondent No.2-wife.
12. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion
on merits of the allegations and counter allegations, for
which the law will take its own course.
……………………..CJI
(SURYA KANT)
……………………..J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
……………………..J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 02, 2026.
4
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8887/2025
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 04-04-2025 in
CRMP No. 3943/2023 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi]
MOHAMMAD WASIM AKRAM Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 02-04-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kanupriya Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, AOR
Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.
Mr. Mithlesh Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5