Back
Onerous Frustrate Purpose of , Rules
In a significant ruling, the
has held that imposing
while granting
undermines the very purpose of the relief, equating it to
"
."
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while modifying a 2014
order that had required the petitioner, Sapath Kumar Chandra, to pay a total of Rs 1.28 lakh to four individuals before he could surrender.
The Case Background
Chandra had been granted by a coordinate bench on , subject to the condition that he pay Rs 35,000 each to Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Sah, and Arun Singh, and furnish a bank draft of Rs 23,000 in the name of Jeevan Bhagat. He was also required to execute a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the . However, Chandra could not mobilize the funds and consequently failed to surrender within the stipulated period. After twelve years, he approached the court seeking modification of the order.
Arguments Presented
Chandra's counsel, , submitted that the petitioner had now arranged the requisite amount and was ready to deposit it within a week. He prayed for two weeks' time to surrender before the trial court. The State, represented by (SC-V), opposed the plea, pointing out that the petitioner had enjoyed the privilege of since 2014 and had not surrendered despite the passage of time.
Legal Analysis and Key Observations
The court noted that the bail granted to Chandra was , and the condition imposed by the coordinate bench was "onerous" and capable of frustrating the very purpose of such bail. Justice Dwivedi observed that the imposition of is a facet of , but such conditions must be grounded in sound judicial principles and cannot be arbitrary or mechanical.
The court further held:
"
should not be imposed merely for the sake of imposing conditions. Under the guise of imposing
, no onerous condition should be imposed. Conditions which are
by the accused would amount to
."
Addressing the delay in filing the modification petition, the court observed that there is no limitation period for approaching the High Court under , corresponding to .
Court's Decision
Taking into account Chandra's readiness to comply with the monetary condition, the court granted him two weeks from the date of the order to surrender before the learned court. The order dated passed in A.B.A. No. 5103 of 2013 was modified to this extent, while all other conditions remained intact. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The ruling serves as a reminder that must be reasonable and achievable, lest they defeat the very liberty they are meant to protect.
