Granting Bail With One Hand And Taking It Away With The Other: Jharkhand HC Modifies Onerous Bail Condition
Petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench in 2014, subject to certain financial conditions.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has modified a 2014 anticipatory bail order after observing that an “onerous condition” imposed while granting statutory bail could frustrate the very purpose of granting bail.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, “Under the guise of imposing bail conditions, no onerous condition should be imposed. Conditions which are inherently onerous or incapable of being complied with by the accused would amount to granting bail with one hand and taking it away with the other.”
The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench on March 26, 2014, subject to certain financial conditions.
Advocate K.K. Ojha appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate K.K. Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The earlier order required the petitioner to pay Rs. 35,000 each three people, besides furnishing a bank draft of Rs. 23,000 in the name of another person. He was also required to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for the like amount.
The petitioner told the High Court that he could not arrange the requisite amount earlier and, consequently, could not surrender before the court within the stipulated time. He submitted that he had now arranged the amount and was ready to deposit it within a week, seeking two weeks’ time to surrender.
The State opposed the plea, pointing out that despite the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner had not surrendered and that the original bail order dated back to 2014.
The High Court, however, examined the nature of the condition imposed in the earlier order and observed that “conditions must be based on sound judicial principles and should not be arbitrary or mechanical.”
“Bail conditions should not be imposed merely for the sake of imposing conditions,” the Court said.
The Court noted that, in the present case, the petitioner had been unable to surrender because he could not arrange the amount stipulated in the earlier order. It also observed that there was no limitation for approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Taking note of the petitioner's submission that he had now arranged the requisite amount and would deposit it before the learned court within one week, the High Court extended by two weeks from August 21 the time for him to surrender before the court.
The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: Sapath Kumar Chandra v. The State of Jharkhand, [2026:JHHC:25335]