Bail conditions must be fair, reasonable; cannot tantamount to deprivation of civil rights: SC [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said that bail conditions cannot tantamount to deprivation of civil rights as it emphasised that the fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused during the investigation and trial.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta said that the court's discretion in imposing conditions must be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the accused's presence, and prevent the misuse of liberty to impede the investigation or obstruct justice.

SC Emphasizes Fair and Reasonable Bail Conditions to Protect Civil Rights

The court allowed an appeal filed by Ramratan alias Ramswaroop and another person against a judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed the accused to remove a wall at their expense and also the state government to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant.

The court examined the issue whether the high court exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 439 CrPC by imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail, to be specific, the direction for removal of the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant.

After hearing the counsel and perusing the facts of the matter, the apex court said that the high court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in para 7 of the impugned order by imposing the conditions of demolishing the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant.

High Court’s Bail Conditions Exceeded Jurisdiction, Says Apex Court

The bench said, in this case, the conditions imposed clearly tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than measures to ensure the accused's presence during trial. “Therefore, the conditions imposed by the high court in the highlighted extract of paragraph 7 of the impugned order, are hereby set aside,” the bench said.

The bench also said under no circumstances, can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property.

The bench said it finds that while the second bail application of the appellants' was under consideration, it was the police, which took possession of the keys of the immovable property under an alleged voluntary application filed by the Mahant of Ram Suchi Sampradaya. “We believe that this action by the police to take possession of immovable property reflects total lawlessness. Under no circumstances, can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law”, said the bench.

The appellants’-accused were arrested on April 27, 2024, in connection with an FIR related to assault and forceful entrance into the property of the complainant.

The counsel, representing the appellants’, contended that the conditions imposed by the high court were excessive and beyond the scope of bail proceedings. “It was submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 437(3) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by imposing onerous conditions that goes beyond ensuring the presence of the accused during investigation and trial”, the bench noted in its judgment.

It was further submitted that the high court's order to hand over the keys of the disputed property to the complainant has prejudiced the ongoing civil suit between the state of Madhya Pradesh and the complainant, his wife, and Mahant Pushpraj.

The complainant’s counsel argued that that looking at the fact that the appellants had forcibly broken into the premises of the complainant being the registered owner of the property and caused injuries to him and his family members, the high court was fully justified in imposing the conditions as set out in the impugned order, while extending indulgence of bail to the appellants.

The bench noted that the apex court in Dilip Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2021), laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail.

“The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations,” the bench said.

Relying upon Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs State of Maharashtra and another (2020), the bench observed that the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.

[Read Judgment]