THROUGH the judgement of the case- Guddan alias Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, delivered on January 3, 2023, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, at the Supreme Court have reiterated once again its consistent line on conditions imposed for bail that those must not be unreasonable, particularly in the scenario, wherein jail is the exception and grant of bail is the Rule.

The present appeal was filed by the appellant against the impugned order passed by the Rajasthan High Court on September 20, 2022 in a Single Bench CA No. 360/2019, seeking for a waiver of the conditions imposed on the grant of suspension of sentence in the said order. The factual matrix of the case in very brief is as under: “3.1. It is alleged that the complainant, on the date of the incident , was assaulted on the head with an iron rod by the appellant, causing the complainant to be admitted to the hospital. 3.2. The complainant then registered a FIR against the appellant under section 341 and 323 of the IPC. A chargesheet was subsequently filed against the appellant under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 IPC.

On February 20, 2019, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under sections 307, 323 and 341 of the IPC on grounds of the recoveries made, the eyewitnesses to the incident and the medical evidence. The appellant was thus sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and fine of Rs one lakh with default sentence under section 307 along with one year imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,000/- with default sentence under section 323 and a one month imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500/- under section 341 of the IPC.

The appellant then preferred an appeal before the HC, and during the pendency of appeal filed an application for suspension of sentence. On September 20, 2022, the HC suspended the sentence of the appellant, however imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs one lakh along with a surety of Rs one lakh and two bail bonds of Rs 50,000/- each. These conditions imposed for grant of suspension of sentence were challenged through this appeal before the Supreme Court.

The SC has pointed out that in the case- Munish Bhasin and Others v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another –(2009) 4 SCC 45, the appellant had approached the SC in appeal against an order of the Delhi HC that had imposed onerous conditions for grant of anticipatory bail in a domestic violence case. The HC in its reasoning held that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail. The relevant observations of the SC are as under: “10. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under section 438 CrPC neither the HC nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no matter of doubt that the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. “12. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the Court under section 438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all.

There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the CrPC.”

In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)- (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail application in a case of an alleged economic offence , the Supreme Court has held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed that it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

Since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the welfare of the society in general. In the SC’s view, the reasoning adopted by the District Judge, which is affirmed by the HC is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. The SC Court has also observed from time to time that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the case of Sandeep Jain v. NCT of Delhi (2000) 2 SCC 66, this Court has held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. The SC has observed that it is unable to appreciate the excessive conditions of bail imposed by the HC .The fact that bail has been granted to the appellant herein is proof enough to show that he would not be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case.

The excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, while granting bail is in a way practical manifestation of not granting bail. The fact, that the appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still in jail, is sufficient indication that he was notable to pay that amount and excessive conditions therefore, have precisely become an anti-thesis to the grant of bail. This is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself.

The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and modified the order of bail passed by the High Court. The Supreme Court has continued the bail order and the conditions imposed by the High Court stand waived off.