The Jharkhand High Court stated that including a condition for the payment of money for bail could create the wrong impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated, which is not the purpose of bail provisions.

The petitioners sought to quash part of an order related to a case pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, concerning a dispute over the solemnization of a marriage and the alleged payment of Rs.12 Lakhs.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, “The conditions to be imposed must not be onerous or unreasonable or excessive. In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/ Court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail.”

Advocate Shivani Jaluka appeared for the Petitioners, Advocate Fahad Allam appeared for the State.

Advocate for the petitioner argued that the petitioners had already returned the sum, but the court directed them to pay it again, which they found unjust.

The Court noted that the order had already recorded the return of the Rs.12 Lakhs by the petitioners, yet it directed them to pay it again for the privilege of anticipatory bail. The Court found this condition unreasonable and not in accordance with the parameters of granting bail or anticipatory bail.

The Court emphasized that bail conditions should not be onerous or excessive and should aim to facilitate the accused's appearance before the investigating officer/court, completion of investigation/trial, and safety of the community. The Court added, “In regular bail cases as well as in anticipatory bail cases, the orders are required to be passed considering the parameters of granting bail as well as anticipatory bail. The condition put by the learned Court appears to be not in accordance with law.

Therefore, the Court set aside the part of the order directing the payment of Rs.12 Lakhs and granted the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail without this condition. The decision was made in accordance with the parameters of granting regular bail and anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Sudhir Narayan & Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr.


Petitioner: Advocate Shivani Jaluka

Respondent: Advocates Fahad Allam, Nilesh Kumar and Sonal Sodhani.

Click here to read/download Order