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

2025 Supreme(Ori) 902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G. SATAPATHY
Harsha C – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.Mund, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. C.Mohanty, Addl. PP

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge to bail conditions. (Para 1)
2. court's analysis of onerous bail conditions. (Para 2 , 3)
3. judicial perspective on geographical discrimination in bail conditions. (Para 4)
4. court's decision on waiver of kin relative surety. (Para 5)
5. final order on the bail condition. (Para 6)

Judgment :

1. Against the imposition of condition to furnish “one surety, who must be a kin relative of the accused” by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court U/S. 483(1)(a)/(b) of BNSS .

3. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the accused has imposed a condition on the petitioner to furnish a surety, who must be his kin relative, but it appears that such condition is not only onerous, but also the same was an impediment for the petitioner for getting out of the jail. Right to personal liberty is the constitutional mandate, but detaining a person in custody is an exception and that must be in according to the procedure established by law. Regarding imposition of conditions in granting bail, law is also fairly well settled in Moti Ram & Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (1978) 4 SCC 47 , wher

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top