SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 301

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Gupta.
For the Respondents: Manish Singhvi, Arpit Parkash, Sandeep Kumar Jha.

Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception; harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail.

Headnote:Waiver - Conditions of Bail - IPC 341, 323, 325, 307 - The court discussed the excessive conditions imposed for the grant of suspension of sentence and cited legal principles from Munish Bhasin and Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi to emphasize that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court held that harsh and excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail, and such conditions should not be so onerous as to tantamount to a refusal of bail.

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:

    3.1. It is alleged that the complainant, on the date of the incident, was assaulted on the head with an iron rod by the Appellant, causing the complainant to be admitted to the hospital.

    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:

    “10. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all.

    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:

    “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top