Stringent bail conditions introduced by the administration of Bombay High Court in July 2010 are back in force in Maharashtra.
A division bench of justice Ranjit More and justice Surendra Tavade on January 29 dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the notification that introduced the additional bail conditions.
The bench also vacated the high court’s December 2010 order that had stayed the notification’s implementation. The notification was issued on July 29, 2010, and it laid down additional requirements for an accused to be released on bail.
Apart from regular bail conditions, the notification mandates the accused to submit names of at least three blood relatives with their detailed residential as well as work addresses, if any, along with documentary proof.
In cases of offences involving financial transactions, the notification requires the concerned court to fix the bail amount with regard to the amount of money involved in the crime, the status of the accused, his past conduct and antecedents – with a view to ensuring that the accused will not jump bail.
The accused will also have to submit copies of at least two documents like passport, PAN card, bank passbook, a credit card with photograph, voter identity card, ration card, electricity bill etc. Police will then have to conduct physical verification of the residential address mentioned in the documents.
{{/usCountry}}The accused will also have to submit copies of at least two documents like passport, PAN card, bank passbook, a credit card with photograph, voter identity card, ration card, electricity bill etc. Police will then have to conduct physical verification of the residential address mentioned in the documents.
{{/usCountry}}It also prohibits courts from granting bail to absconding accused or accused arrested after warrant issued due to their non-appearance, unless special reasons are recorded by the court for reauthorising their release on bail.
Advocate Anjali Waghmare had filed the public interest litigation contending that the new conditions were unreasonable, unworkable and harsh.
Acting on the petitions, another division bench, had on December 20, 2010, stayed the implementation of the notification for anticipatory bail as also for regular bail.
However, on January 10, 2013, yet another bench found that the petition was filed on the basis of vague assertions and had granted time to the petitioner to place necessary material to support their contention.
On January 29, 2020, the bench headed by justice Ranjit More dismissed the PIL and vacated the stay order after noticing the petitioner had not placed any material in support of her contentions.