The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail conditions should be relevant to the bail application, and courts should not impose extraneous conditions unrelated to the consideration of bail.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10-05-2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 40580/2021.

3. In this appeal, the observations made by the High Court, which are unrelated to decide the bail application filed by the appellant and the extraneous conditions imposed for grant of interim/regular bail, has been made subject matter of challenge.

4. At the outset, we must record that neither the State nor the complainant is in appeal against the order passed in favour of the appellant by the High Court directing his release on interim/regular bail in terms of the impugned order.

5. This is yet another matter where we find that the High Court has referred to matters which are unrelated to the consideration of prayer for bail in reference to the crime registered against the concerned accused.

6. The High Court having noted the stand taken by the appellant ought to have dealt with only those aspects of the matter and not ventured into issues which were completely unrelated to the consideration of prayer for bail much less to impose conditions way beyond the need for ensuring the presence of the accused during the investigation or trial of the concerned case.

7. To observe sobriety and to avoid prolixity, for the nature of order that we propose to pass, it is unnecessary to dilate on all aspects of the matter except to note that after careful consideration of the impugned order and the objectionable conditions therein, we have no hesitation in setting aside that part of the order passed by the High Court while retaining the conditions which are relevant for grant of bail to the Appellant. The following directions contained in paragraph 39 (i) of the impugned order of the High Court stands hereby set aside

8. The following conditions which are relevant for grant of bail to the appellant are not touched which reads thus:

" (i) The applicant shall surrender his passport on the day of his release before concerned Court and its fate and future would be decided at the end of trial.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of the condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

(iv) In case, the applicant miuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C, may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. if in the opinion of the Trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, Then it shall be open for the Trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(vi) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts /endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail."

9. The aforesaid conditions shall operate during the bail period and the appellant must strictly adhere to those conditions without exception.

10. Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General was, at pains, to persuade us to impose additional condition that the appellant be d