The Supreme Court reiterated that excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence.
The conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamount to refusal of bail, the bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside conditions imposed by Rajasthan High Court for suspension of sentence in a criminal appeal.
Guddan @ Roop Narayan was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 307,323 and 341 IPC and was sentenced to 10 years Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000- with default sentence. In appeal, the Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence, but imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each. Thus he approached the Apex Court challenging these conditions.
This Court, time and time again has held that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the rule, and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable, the Apex Court bench observed while taking note of these conditions imposed by the High Court.
The bench referred to observations made in Munish Bhasin and Others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2009) 4 SCC 45 , Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 4 and Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi (2000) 2 SCC 66.
The court said that the excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail. The court said:
“As has been stated in the Sandeep Jain case (supra), the conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamount to refusal of bail. In the present case, however, the excessive conditions herein have precisely become that, an antithesis to the grant of bail.. Any other accused in a similar circumstance at this point would not be in custody, however, the present Appellant, because of the conditions imposed, has not been able to leave the languish of jail. 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.”
The court also noted that Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan on the basis of instructions conceded to the point that the conditions of bail are excessive and the appellant is in no financial condition to satisfy the conditions. We deeply appreciate his role as an officer of the court for his unbiased attitude in the matter, the bench said.
Case details
Guddan @ Roop Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45 | CrA 120 OF 2023 | 3 Jan 2023 | Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian
