Excessive bail conditions impair personal liberty and may indirectly deny bail, conflicting with Article 21 rights.

Judgment :

G. Satapathy, J.

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 .

2. Heard, Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mohanty, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record.

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 , wherein the Apex Court through the immortal words of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Krishna Iyer had held that “India is one and not a conglomeration of districts, untouchably apart” and therefore, seeking a condition which is not strictly in terms of the mandate of law would be highly unacceptable. No doubt, there is no provision regulating imposing any condition while granting bail, but the condition would be of such nature that it would only help in securing the attendance of the petitioner at the trial and when the Court has already imposed a condition to furnish two sureties, there is no need to insist that out of the two sureties, one would be his kin relative and even if it is imposed, it would have been waived out when the petitioner could not furnish such surety even after getting bail. While interpreting the provision of law, the Court should always be inclined to give effect to the personal liberty of a person. The underlying principle in imposing conditions while grating bail is that the excessive bail is no bail. In the context, it is to be understood why there are provisions for bail which is in fact enacted to prevent detention of accused pending adjudication of the allegation leveled against the accused as pre-trial punishment since the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and, therefore, imposing onerous conditions sometimes amounts to denial of bail. The conditions imposed on the accused while granting bail is somewhat meant to ensure attendance of the accused at the trial, but imposing a condition which is not only excessive, but also impossible for the accused to comply is never the intention of the legislature and while granting bail by passing an order, it is presumed that the Court has already intended to exercise its discretion of personal liberty in favour of the accused, but thereafter imposing an impossible condition to comply would only frustrate the intention of the Court to grant bail to the accused and it is against the personal liberty of the accused which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After granting bail, imposing excessive and onerous conditions, which are impossible for compliance by the accused for his release from custody is not the spirit of law and would be considered depriving the accused of his personal liberty without the sanction of law. What are considered excessive and onerous conditions would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and the capacity of the accused, but once the accused is found unable to furnish surety or comply the conditions of bail, the Court has to come to the aid of the such accused by mo