Harsh riders amount to denying bail, says Supreme Court | India News



NEW DELHI: Observing that harsh and excessive conditions for bail amount to denying bail, the Supreme Court disapproved of the practice of imposing such conditions resulting in the accused languishing in jail.
A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian said that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the rule and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable. Noting that the accused remained in jail despite being granted bail in September because of not being able to fulfil the conditions, the Supreme Court modified the high court order and waived off the bail conditions.
The Supreme Court did not agree with an order passed by the Rajasthan high court directing an accused to deposit a fine of Rs 1 lakh along with a surety of the same amount and two bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each for availing bail in an attempt to murder case and said it was too onerous, resulting in the accused failing to comply with the conditions.
“Any other accused in a similar circumstance at this point would not be in custody. However, the present appellant, because of the conditions imposed, has not been able to leave the jail. Can the appellant, for not being able to comply with excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself,” it said.
Noting that the accused remained in jail despite being granted bail in September because of not being able to fulfil the conditions, the Supreme Court modified the high court order and waived off the bail conditions.
“We are unable to appreciate the excessive conditions of bail imposed by the high court. The fact that bail has been granted to the appellant herein is proof enough to show that he is not to be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case. While bail has been granted to the appellant, the excessive conditions imposed have, in fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail. If the appellant had paid the required amount, it would have been a different matter. However, the fact that the appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still languishing in jail, is sufficient indication that he was not able to make up the amount,” the bench said.
Referring to various verdicts of the apex court, the bench said the conditions of bail can’t be so onerous.
A bench of Justices Krishna Murari & V Ramasubramanian said that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the rule and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail must not be unreasonable.





Source link

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *