The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that 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.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner alleged that certain amount was paid for the solemnization of marriage. However, the marriage couldn’t take place and sum of Rs.12 Lakhs has already been returned. Thereafter, the court directed to pay sum of Rs. 12 Lakhs to opposite party no. 2 in order to enjoy the privilege of anticipatory bail. The present petition is filed to quash the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the parameters for granting bail and anticipatory bail must be taken into consideration while making rulings in both regular and anticipatory bail cases.
It was furthermore observed that the conditions that need to be followed shouldn't be burdensome, unreasonable, or excessive. Any conditions that would make it easier for the accused to appear in court or before the investigating officer, allow the investigation or trial to proceed without interference, and encourage community safety are taken into consideration while granting bail. Nevertheless, requiring payment of money to obtain bail often gives the impression that money purportedly stolen can be deposited to secure bail. That is not the intention or goal of the provisions to grant bail.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the order passed by the court below and provided the petitioner with the privilege of anticipatory bail without the fulfillment of the aforesaid condition imposed by the court below.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Petition
Case Title: Sudhir Narayan vs. the State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1905 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P
Advocates for the Opposite party no. 2: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
