The Supreme Court has reiterated that bail conditions should be reasonable, proportionate, and directly related to ensuring the presence of the accused during judicial proceedings, rather than infringing on individual civil liberties. A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that judicial discretion in bail matters must serve the criminal justice system without encroaching on personal freedoms.
In its ruling, delivered on October 25, the court clarified that the primary aim of bail is to ensure the accused appears for trial, while imposing no unnecessary restrictions. The judgment arose from an appeal against a Madhya Pradesh high court bail order that included excessively restrictive conditions, such as requiring the accused to demolish a disputed wall at their own expense and transfer property to the complainant.
The Supreme Court found these conditions to be excessive and inappropriate, noting they extended beyond typical bail parameters and intruded into civil dispute resolution. The bench stated, “The fundamental purpose of bail is to secure the accused’s presence during trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective.” The court deemed the high court’s conditions as effectively depriving the accused of civil rights, leading to their annulment.
The ruling aims to balance the integrity of the legal process with individual liberties. It referenced its earlier decision in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs State of Maharashtra (2020), which asserted that while courts have discretion in setting bail conditions, these should facilitate justice and not infringe on the accused’s liberty. Excessive or irrelevant bail conditions, the court noted, could violate personal rights.
The court also cited the Sumit Mehta Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) case, which cautioned against interpreting bail provisions as granting absolute power to impose arbitrary stipulations. Conditions must be reasonable and practically effective, ensuring they do not negate the purpose of granting bail.
Additionally, in Dilip Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the court stressed that various factors should be considered when setting bail conditions, including the nature of accusations, potential witness threats, risks of absconding, and the character of the accused.
Importantly, the ruling dismissed any notion of bail conditions involving enforcement of civil judgments, such as property rights, as these could overstep judicial boundaries and infringe upon individual freedoms. The bench criticized the high court’s requirement for the accused to demolish a wall and relinquish disputed property, emphasizing that judicial discretion must prioritize facilitating justice and securing the accused’s presence.
The court also condemned police actions in Madhya Pradesh for taking control of disputed property during the bail process, describing it as a breach of legal boundaries and “total lawlessness.” It underscored that no legal provision permits law enforcement to assume control over immovable property as part of criminal proceedings, stating, “Under no circumstances can the police interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action is not sanctioned by law.”
