The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case criticized the practice of imposing harsh conditions in the bail order because of which the Accused ended up staying in jail. The Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian opined that such a situation where the Accused cannot fulfil the excessive requirements imposed on him under the garb of bail conditions and remains in custody for perpetuity is not a symptom of injustice, it is injustice.
The Accused was charged under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was thereafter convicted by the Learned Trial Court. On adjudicating upon the Appeal, the Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence but imposed conditions (a fine amounting to Rs 1 lakh along with the surety of Rs 1 lakh and 2 bail bonds of Rs 50 thousand each).
The Apex Court did not concur with the conditions imposed by the High Court and noted the contradiction in the order of the High Court. The fact that bail was granted to the Accused by the High Court contradicted the fact that the conditions imposed were such that it acted as a refusal to grant bail. The bail order cannot be such that it signals refusal of bail.
The Division Bench further observed that the Appellant despite having been granted bail has to remain in jail merely because of the excessive conditions imposed on him.
“Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself.”
Re-iterating that jail is the exception and the grant of bail is the rule, the Top Court modified the bail order and waived of the bail conditions imposed on the Accused.
“This Court, time and again has held that jail is the exception and the grant of bail is the rule, and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable.”
Case Title: Guddan @Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari, Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Abhishek Gupta
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sandeep Kumar Jha
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments