Bail conditions imposed by courts must be reasonable and not onerous; conditions that effectively preclude an indigent accused from exercising their right to bail through financial requirements are liable to be set aside or modified.

OTHER PRESENT:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI DEVADAS H MALLAN

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 10th day of July, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No. 144/2025 registered by the Arthungal Police Station, as against the accused persons, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 309(6), 118(1), 311, 126(2), 115(2) and 324(6) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 5 of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Act, 2019 (‘Act’, for short).

2. By Annexure A2 order, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. As per condition No. (i), the petitioner has been directed to make a cash security of Rs. 75,000/- before the jurisdictional court. The petitioner does not have the means to deposit the said amount. The above condition is onerous and unjustifiable. Due to the incapacity of the petitioner to deposit the above amount, he is languishing in jail for the last 510 days. Moreover, there are other accused involved in the crime. Therefore, the direction that the petitioner shall deposit the entire amount is unreasonable. The offence under the Act is not attracted. Hence, condition No. (i) in Annexure A2 order may be set aside.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. By condition No.(i) in Annexure A2 order, the petitioner has been directed to make the cash security presumably in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Hemanth Kumar and others v. Sub Inspector of Police and another (2011 (4) KHC 89). However, that was a case under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Whether the said principles can be applicable to the case at hand is doubtful. Nonetheless, considering the fact that the petitioner does not have the means to make the cash security and he has been languishing in jail for the last 510 days, I am satisfied that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and set aside the said condition.

5. It is well settled that the onerous and unreasonable conditions shall not be imposed by the courts while granting bail to an accused on bail.

In light of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the Crl.M.C is to be allowed in the following manner:

(i) Condition No. (i) in Annexure A2 order is deleted.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the said amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall also comply with the conditions (ii) to (iv) in Annexure A2 order.