CASE TITLE:
Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan
DATE OF ORDER:
3 January 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Krishna Murari
Justice V. Ramasubramanian
SUBJECT
The Apex Court, in the present case, once again reiterated the well settled principle that grant of bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The Court held that the High Court and the Sessions Court should act reasonably while exercising their discretion under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The Appellant in the present case was accused of physically assaulting the complainant with an iron rod.
- The learned Trial Court held him guilty and sentenced him to an imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.
- The Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court and later also applied for suspension of his sentence.
- The High Court allowed the suspension of his sentence but imposed harsh conditions. The Appellant was asked to submit a huge amount of Rs. 1,00,000 along with a surety of Rs 1,00,000. He was, in addition, also required to submit 2 bail bonds of Rs. 50,000 each.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the conditions imposed by the learned High Court of Rajasthan are reasonable or they practically amount to refusal of bail?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- While adjudicating upon the matter, the Court observed that it is a settled principle that jail is an exception and grant of bail is a rule.
- The Court further observed that in Munish Bhasin v. State & Another [(2009) 4 SCC 45], it was held that the High Court or the Sessions Court can not impose freakish conditions while exercising their power to grant bail u/s 438 CrPC. The conditions can not be harsh, onerous or excessive.
- The learned Court also made a reference to the observations of this Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]. The Court had held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Its object is to ensure the appearance of the accused person at the time of trial. The Court observed-“This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
- Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. NCT of Delhi [(2000) 2 SCC 66], the Court laid down that the conditions imposed for grant of bail can not so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail.
CONCLUSION
Observing the view taken by it on several previous occasions, the Court concluded that the conditions imposed by the High Court are unreasonable. They are so excessive that in practical manifestation they amount to a refusal to the grant of bail. The Court thus while upholding the order of bail, waived off the conditions imposed by the High Court.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
