Conditions Imposed While Granting Bail Must Not Be 'Onerous, Unreasonable Or Excessive': Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the conditions to be imposed while granting bail must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. The Court stressed that conditions should aim to ensure the accused's appearance before authorities, unhindered trial proceedings, and community safety.Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the conditions to be imposed while granting bail must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. The Court stressed that conditions should aim to ensure the accused's appearance before authorities, unhindered trial proceedings, and community safety.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “The conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/ Court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail.”
The above observation came in a petition filed for quashing part of the order passed in two Anticipatory Bail Petitions arising out of a case pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Advocate Shivani Jaluka, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were disputes with regard to solemnization of marriage and it was alleged that a certain amount was paid to the petitioners for solemnization of marriage.
Jaluka further stated that the marriage did not occur, and the sum of Rs.12 Lakhs had already been refunded. Additionally, she mentioned that the petition sought a direction to pay Rs.12 Lakhs to the second opposing party. Subsequently, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail, which they contested as being unjust.
The High Court in its observations observed that in the impugned order it had also been recorded that sum of Rs.12 Lakhs was already returned back by the petitioners to opposite party no.2, however, privilege of anticipatory bail was granted with further direction that sum of Rs.12 Lakhs shall be further paid by the petitioners to opposite party no.2.
The Court observed, “In regular bail cases as well as in anticipatory bail cases, the orders are required to be passed considering the parameters of granting bail as well as anticipatory bail. The condition put by the learned Court appears to be not in accordance with law.”
In view of the above facts, the said part of the impugned order passed in the two Anticipatory Bail Petitions was set aside.
The Court directed, “The petitioners shall be provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in terms of the order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi without payment of Rs.12 Lakhs to opposite party no.2.”
“This order has been passed considering the parameters of grant of regular bail as well as anticipatory bail,” the Court added while disposing of the petition.
Appearance:
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P
Advocates for the Opposite party no. 2: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1905 of 2016
Case Title: Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 47