New Delhi: The Supreme Court said in one of its remarks that ‘harsh and excessive conditions’ for bail are tantamount to the denial of bail. The apex court disapproved of the practice of imposing such conditions, as a result of which the accused are denied bail and are forced to stay in jail. According to a report in The Times of India, the Supreme Court, while hearing a case, found that the accused remained in jail despite being granted bail in September due to non-fulfillment of conditions, modified the High Court order, and removed the bail conditions Granted. A bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice V Ramasubramanian said that jail is the exception and bail is the rule, and in such a situation the conditions imposed on bail should not be unreasonable.
The Supreme Court disagreed with an order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, requiring an accused in an attempt to murder case to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh and furnish a personal bond of like amount and two bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each for seeking bail. The instruction was given. The Supreme Court said in its comment that the conditions imposed by the High Court for granting bail to the accused were very onerous, as a result of which he failed to comply with these conditions. The top court said, ‘At this time no other accused would be in custody in a similar situation. However, the present appellant has not been able to come out of jail due to the conditions imposed.
The Supreme Court observed, ‘Can the appellant be kept in indefinite detention for not being able to comply with the onerous requirements? Keeping the appellant in jail, that too in a case where he would normally have got bail for the alleged offenses is not only a symptom of injustice but injustice itself.’ Noting that the accused remained in jail despite being granted bail in September due to non-fulfillment of conditions, the Supreme Court modified the Rajasthan High Court order and did away with the bail conditions. The Supreme Court said, ‘We are unable to appreciate the excessive bail conditions imposed by the High Court.’
In its remarks, the top court said, “The fact that the appellant has been granted bail is sufficient evidence to show that he is rotting in jail during the pendency of the case.” While the appellant has been granted bail, the excessive conditions imposed have, in fact, acting as a denial of bail to him. Had the appellant paid the required amount, it would have been a different matter. However, the fact remains that he is still in jail. This is a sufficient indication that he was not able to pay the amount. Referring to various decisions of the apex court, the bench said that the conditions of bail cannot be so onerous.