Bail Condition Shouldn't Be Stringent Otherwise It Would Amount To Denial Of Bail And Violates Accused's Right Of Personal Liberty

The Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal further quoted Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, who, while speaking for the Supreme Court in the matter of Babu Singh & others v. The State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 had said,

"The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. The corrective instinct of the law plays upon release orders by strapping on to them protective and curative conditions. Heavy bail from poor men is obviously wrong. Poverty is society's malady and sympathy, not sternness, is the judicial response."

Facts of the case

The petitioner before the Court is an accused standing trial for offence under Section 420/34 of the IPC.

He made an application under Section 437 of the CrPC for grant of bail and eventually that application was granted by learned Magistrate with a condition of furnishing bank guarantee of ₹ 2,00,000/­ or cash.

On revision being preferred by the petitioner, First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod partly allowed the revision and reduced the amount of bank guarantee from ₹ 2,00,000 to ₹ 1,00,000 and also directed for furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000/­ in addition to bank guarantee.

Questioning the legality and correctness of order passed by Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of one lakh, instant petition under Section 482 of the CrPC was preferred.

Court's Observations

The Court observed that it is well settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 437/439 of the CrPC, it is the duty of the Court to see that condition for grant of bail should not be arbitrary or capricious, it should be just and reasonable and it cannot insist the accused to give cash security or to provide local surety.

The Court further said,

"An essential requirement in the imposition of any condition is that it should result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of accused and rights of police to investigate the case. A balance should be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and investigational right of police."

The Court also relied on Apex Court's ruling in the case of Moti Ram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47 wherein the Court had deprecated the practice of demanding heavy sums by way of bail.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Court noted.

"It is quite vivid that in the instant case, though the accused had been admitted to the privilege of bail under Section 437 of the CrPC and he is only a small agriculturist, yet stringent and onerous condition of furnishing bank guarantee of ₹ 2,00,000/­ was imposed by the trial Magistrate though that has partly been modified by the revisional Court from ₹ 2,00,000/­ to ₹ 1,00,000/­, but still condition of furnishing bank guarantee of ₹ 1,00,000/­ is stringent and excessively onerous condition, which cannot be said to be reasonable condition for grant of bail in the light of aforesaid mandate of the Supreme Court (rulings)."

Accordingly, the condition imposing bank guarantee of ₹ 1,00,000/¬ was thereby set-aside and the accused was directed to be released forthwith on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 20,000/¬ to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Related news

In the matter of M. D. Dhanapal v. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, the Apex Court in the year 2019 had held that bail cannot be made conditional upon heavy deposit beyond the financial capacity of the applicant.

In December 2019, while recapitulating the principles to be followed by courts while granting bail, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had highlighted that poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused must be taken into account while granting bail.

Further, in September 2020, while reducing the amount of sureties for Bail of a "poor person", the Uttarakhand High Court had observed that the petitioner could not get his freedom back because he could not arrange for sureties.

The Single Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani had remarked,

"In the instant case petitioner is in jail because he is poor. It cannot be afforded; it should not happen and this Court will not allow it to happen."

Also, in June 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that the bail conditions imposed by a court should not be so onerous that they prove "fatal to bail".

"The condition of bail or the burden imposed on it, ought not to be such so as to defeat the very meaning of bail. Else, might as well decline the bail instead of giving an illusory one," the bench Justice Arun Monga said.

It is interesting to note what the Apex Court had stated (quoting observation of American President Lyndon B. Johnson) in the Case of Moti Ram (supra) in para no. 15. We are reproducing the said para of the Judgment as hereunder:-

"15. It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research had legislative response and the Bail Reforms Act, 1966 came into being. The then President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certain observations at the signing ceremony:

Today, we join to recognize a major development in our system of criminal justice : the reform of the bail system.

This system has endued-archaic, unjust and virtually unexamined -since the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The principal purpose of bail is to insure that an accused person will return for trial if he is released after arrest.

How is that purpose met under the present system? The defendant with means can afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy his freedom. But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price. He languishes in jail weeks, months and perhaps even years before trial.

He does not stay in jail because he is guilty.

He does not stay in jail because any sentence has been passed.

He does not stay in jail because he is any more likely to flee before trial.

He stays in jail for one reason only-because he is poor…"