The court emphasized the need to minimize punitive harshness and innovate restorative devices for individuals involved in criminal cases, influencing the decision to grant bail with specific conditions.

ORDER :

I.A. No.29794/2019 - (GRANT OF BAIL) IN Crl.A. No.1286/2018

1. We have heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent – State and perused the record.

2. It is stated that the appellants have been released on temporary bail, furlough and parole on several occasions. The period for which they have been out of custody under the said arrangements ranged from 190 to 520 days. There is no report of their having misconducted themselves or indulged in any criminal activities.

3. It is not disputed that none of the appellants have criminal antecedents. Further, we find that these appellants have been found guilty by the appellate court on the deposition of one witness.

4. We may gainfully refer to paragraph 19 of the decision of this Court in Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579.

“19. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defense and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offences while on judicially sanctioned “free enterprise”, should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the Court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our Constitution.”

5. It could, thus, be seen that this Court has held that punitive harshness should be minimized and restorative devises to redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill, etc. should be innovated. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate in the circumstances to direct the release of the appellants on bail. While doing so, we also find appropriate that the appellants be directed to engage in any spiritual programme or to do some social/community services.

6. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to the following conditions :

(1) That the appellants shall not enter the State of Gujarat until the final decision of their pending appeal(s) before this Court.

(2) That they shall reside in the District of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and report to the Police Station at Palasia, Indore, on the first day of each calendar month.

(3) That they shall not leave the District of Indore without obtaining permission from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Indore.

(4) That the appellants shall engage themselves in any spiritual programme or do some social/community services for a minimum period of six hours in a week during the period of bail in view of the judgment and order passed by the this Court in the case of Babu Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra).

7. It is further directed that Member Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall produce a certificate before this Court stating therein that the appellants are regularly engaged in any of the aforesaid programme/services. The Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall also assist the appellants for obtaining employment in the district of Indore.

8. The Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority shall submit a report of the compliance of the above conditions and regarding general conduct of the appellants once in every three months initially.

9. In view of the above, the interlocutory