SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Guddan @ Roop Narayan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2023, SLP (Criminal) No. 9756 of 2022
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under various sections of the IPC and sought suspension of sentence. The High Court granted bail but imposed excessive conditions.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditions imposed were excessive and acted as a refusal of bail in practical manifestation.Issues:
Whether the conditions for the grant of suspension of sentence were excessively onerous.Ratio Decidendi:
Harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail; such conditions should not be so onerous as to tantamount to a refusal of bail.Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed, and the conditions set for the grant of bail were waived off.ORDER :
1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant herein against the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. CA No. 360/2019. The Appellant herein is seeking for a waiver of the conditions imposed on the grant of suspension of sentence by the impugned order.
2. We had already on 03.01.2023 passed an order allowing the Appeal and waiving off the conditions of bail. We are now giving reasons for the same.
3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this Appeal are as follows:
3.2. The complainant then registered an FIR against the Appellant u/s 341 and 323 of the IPC. A charge-sheet was subsequently filed against the Appellant u/s 341, 323, 325 and 307 IPC.
4. The Ld. Trial Court, vide order dated 20.02.2019 convicted the appellant u/s 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 10 years Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default sentence u/s 307 along with 1 year Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence u/s 323 and a 1 month Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 341 of the IPC.
5. The Appellant then preferred an Appeal before the High Court, and during the pendency of the Appeal preferred an Application for Suspension of Sentence.
6. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 20.09.2022 suspended the sentence of the Appellant, however 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.
7. These conditions imposed by the High Court for the grant of suspension of sentence are being challenged in the present Appeal.
8. We have heard the arguments of both the parties in detail.
9. 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.
10. In the case of Munish Bhasin and Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2009) 4 SCC 45, the Appellant had approached the Supreme Court in Appeal against an order of the High Court that had imposed onerous conditions for grant of Anticipatory Bail in a Domestic Violence case. This Hon’ble Court in its reasoning held that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail, the relevant observations of this Court are reproduced hereunder:
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 Code.”
11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under:
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi
Munish Bhasin and Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another
Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception; harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail.
Conditions for anticipatory bail must be imposed with judicious application of mind, and the recovery of public money cannot be a condition for bail.
The accused is entitled to default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) CrPC, subject to the conditions specified in the section. Imposing additional onerous conditions frustrates the purpose of ....
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.