Bail conditions must not violate civil rights: SC

The judgment emphasised that any conditions imposed should be directly tied to facilitating justice, securing the accused’s presence, and preventing any misuse of freedom to interfere with the case or obstruct justice.

The Supreme Court has reinforced that bail conditions should be proportionate, reasonable and directly linked to ensuring judicial proceedings rather than trampling upon an individual’s civil liberties. According to the top court, judicial discretion in bail matters ought to serve the criminal justice system’s objectives without encroaching on individual freedoms or civil matters.

The judgment emphasised that any conditions imposed should be directly tied to facilitating justice, securing the accused’s presence, and preventing any misuse of freedom to interfere with the case or obstruct justice. (HT PHOTO)

A bench of justices CT Ravikumar and Sandeep Mehta clarified that the fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during trial without infringing upon civil liberties or imposing unnecessary restrictions. The judgment emphasised that any conditions imposed should be directly tied to facilitating justice, securing the accused’s presence, and preventing any misuse of freedom to interfere with the case or obstruct justice.

“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,” held the bench in its judgment on October 25.

The judgment arose from an appeal against a bail order by the Madhya Pradesh high court, which had imposed unusually restrictive conditions. Among other things, the high court order issued in July required the accused to demolish a disputed wall at their own expense and transfer possession of the property to the complainant.

The Supreme Court found these conditions excessive, noting that they exceeded the typical parameters of bail and ventured into the realm of civil dispute resolution. In the judgment, the bench highlighted the core purpose of bail -- to secure an accused’s presence at trial without imposing undue constraints or veering into civil or property matters.

“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 are hereby set aside,” stated the bench.

Reflecting an effort to define a balanced approach that respects both the integrity of the legal process and individual liberties, the top court referred to its earlier decision in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs State of Maharashtra (2020), which held that while courts can exercise discretion in imposing bail conditions, such conditions should 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.” The court added that excessive or irrelevant bail conditions may infringe on personal rights, thereby invalidating them.

The judgment further draws on some other precedents which advocate for restraint and relevance in the imposition of bail conditions. It cited Sumit Mehta Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) case, in which the apex court observed that the phrase “any condition” in bail provisions should not be interpreted as an “absolute power” to impose arbitrary stipulations. Instead, these conditions should be “reasonable, factually permissible, and effective in a pragmatic sense” while ensuring that they do not “defeat the order of grant of bail.”

The bench further quoted Dilip Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), emphasising that criminal courts should consider various factors when imposing bail conditions. These factors include the nature of accusations, potential threats to witnesses, the risk of absconding, and the accused’s character.

Importantly, this ruling rejected any notion of bail conditions that veer into enforcing judgments on civil issues, such as property rights, as such interventions could overstep judicial boundaries and infringe on individual freedoms.

Criticising the high court’s requirement for the accused to demolish a wall and hand over disputed property as a bail condition, the bench held: “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.”

It referenced the apex court’s judgment in Mahesh Chandra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), which asserted that bail conditions should not delve into civil matters while affirming that “while deciding a bail application, it is not the jurisdiction of the court to decide civil disputes as between the parties.”

In its judgment, the bench also deprecated the actions of the police in Madhya Pradesh for assuming control of disputed property during a bail proceeding, labeling the move as a breach of legal limits and “total lawlessness”. Highlighting the lack of legal grounds for such police actions, the court underscored that no provision permits law enforcement to assume control over immovable property as part of criminal proceedings. “Under no circumstances, can the police be allowed to interfere with the possession of immovable property, as such action does not bear sanction by any provision of law,” it held.