The Supreme Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta observed that a condition for payment of compensation to victims cannot be imposed at the stage of bail. (Dharmesh @ Dharmendra @ Dhamo Jagdishbhai @ Jagabhai Bhagubhai Ratadia vs. State Of Gujarat)
The bench noted, "We may hasten to add that we are not saying that no monetary condition can be imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are cases of offences against property or otherwise but that cannot be a compensation to be deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to take place as a condition of the person being enlarged on bail."
Facts of the case
An unfortunate incident of a free fight took place between rival groups after which two victims succumbed to their injuries. FIR was filed in Amreli Police Station in which 13 persons including the present appellants were also arrayed as accused were charged under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 506(2), 504, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 135(ii) of the Gujarat Police Act. Appellants were arrested. They applied for bail and they were granted bail by the High Court.
However, the High Court imposed a bail condition requiring them to deposit Rs 2 Lac each, as compensation to the victims, within a period of 3 months. Aggrieved by this direction, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Issue before the court
Whether compensation to victim at the stage of Bail, permissible under the provisions of CrPC or not.
Contention of the Parties
The accused contended that in the aforesaid scenario as per clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 357 of the CrPC the said amount could be utilised for payment of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence when such amount would be recoverable in a civil court.
The Court’s attention was also invited to sub-section (3) of Section 357 CrPC, which again begins with “when the court imposes a sentence” and where a “fine does not form a part”, an accused may be asked to pay compensation when passing the judgment.
The accused contended that under Section 357 CrPC, compensation can only arise after the conclusion of trial and without a full-fledged trial there cannot be a sentence and, thus, there cannot be any such compensation.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The bench observed in cases of offences against body, compensation to the victim should be a methodology for redemption. However, it said: “To prevent unnecessary harassment, compensation has been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings had been started. Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the stage of grant of bail.”
The bench further remarked, “ We may hasten to add that we are not saying that no monetary condition can be imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are cases of offences against property or otherwise but that cannot be a compensation to be deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to take place as a condition of the person being enlarged on bail.”
The bench said the deposit of compensation of Rs 2 lakh for the legal heirs of the deceased, naturally cannot be sustained and has to be logically set aside.
The bench remarked, “We consider it appropriate to impose the same terms and conditions for grant of bail upon the appellants and set aside condition of the bail requiring the appellants to deposit Rs 2 lakh each towards compensation to the victims before the trial court and the consequential orders for disbursement.”
The bench imposed another condition that the appellants will not enter the geographical limits of Amreli for a period of six months except for marking presence before the police station concerned and to attend the court proceedings.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
