No onerous bail conditions: Condition imposed by the Hon’ble High Court directing the accused to demolish the wall of the complainant at accused’s cost tantamount to deprivation of civil rights rather than to ensure the accused’s presence during trial

Appeal against the bail condition imposed by the Hon’ble High Court to removal the complainant’s wall at the accused’s expense

2. This appeal arises from an order dated 25th July, 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 27154 of 2024. Vide the impugned order, the High Court granted bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions, including the removal of a wall at their expense and also directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant (objector before the High Court).

3. The brief facts relevant and essential for the adjudication of the present appeal are as follows.

FIR registered for the offences under sections 294, 323, 506, 447, 147, 148 and 458 IPC alleging appellants had forcefully entered into the complainant’s property by breaking a wall and assaulted his family members

4. An FIR was lodged on 22nd April, 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506, 447, 147, 148, and Section 458 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Road, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh. The complainant alleged that the appellants, along with others, had forcefully entered into his property after breaking a wall and assaulted his family members. In pursuance of the same, the appellants were arrested on 27th April, 2024. The appellant’s First Bail Application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29th May, 2024, with liberty to renew the prayer after the chargesheet was filed. The chargesheet was filed against the appellants on 20th June, 2024 under Sections 294, 323, 506, 447, 147, 148, 458, 149 and Section 326 IPC.

Second Bail application

Thereafter, the appellants preferred a Second Bail Application, which came to be allowed vide the impugned order with the following observations:

“…………….”

Appeal against the onerous conditions imposed by the Hon’ble High Court

5. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the onerous conditions imposed by the High Court while granting the bail to them vide the impugned order.

Onerous conditions being direction for removal of wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over possession of disputed property to complainant

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The issue that requires our attention is as to whether the High Court exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 439 CrPC by imposing onerous and unreasonable conditions unrelated to the grant of bail, to be specific, the direction for removal of the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over possession of the disputed property to the complainant.

Conditions imposed must be reasonable and not onerous: Judgment analysis

12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in “Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra and Another [(2020) 10 SCC 77]” observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:

“14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied).

13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 15 SCC 570], this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:-

“15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied)

14. This Court in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 779], laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed:

“4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied)

15. In Mahesh Chandra v. State of U.P. and Others [(2006) 6 SCC 196], this Court observed that while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court to decide civil disputes as between the parties. The relevant part is extracted hereinbelow:

“3. As a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, the High Court has recorded the undertaking of the petitioners to pay to the victim daughter-in-law a sum of Rs 2000 per month and failure to do so would result in vacation of the order granting bail. We notice that the applicants before the High Court were the jeth and jethani of the victim. We fail to understand how they can be made liable to deposit Rs 2000 per month for the maintenance of the victim. Moreover, while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the court to decide civil disputes as between the parties. We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to consider the bail application afresh on merit and to pass an appropriate order without imposing any condition of the nature imposed by the impugned order. (Emphasis supplied)

Imposing conditions must facilitate the administration of justice and to secure the accused’s present

16. This Court has consistently emphasised that the Court’s discretion in imposing conditions must be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the accused’s presence, and prevent the misuse of liberty to impede the investigation or obstruct justice.

Hon’ble High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing condition of demolishing the wall at the expense of appellants

18. Therefore, we conclude that the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in para 7 of the impugned order by imposing the conditions of demolishing the wall at the expense of the appellants and handing over the possession of the disputed property to the complainant.

19. In this case, the conditions imposed clearly tantamount to deprivation of civil rights, rather than measures to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. Therefore, the conditions imposed by the High Court in the highlighted extract of paragraph 716 of the impugned order, are hereby set aside.

21. The appellants shall continue to remain on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

22. The other conditions imposed by the High Court shall remain in force.

23. The appeal is allowed in these terms. No costs.

24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of

Party

Ramratan @ Ramswaroop & Anr …  Appellant(S) versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh … Respondent(S) – Criminal Appeal No(S). 4402 of 2024 (Arising Out Of Slp(Crl.) No(S). 10773 Of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No(S).4403 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 14993 of 2024) Diary No. 40532/2024 – October 25, 2024 – 2024 INSC 826.