Out of bounds: Unusual or onerous bail conditions ought to have no place in judicial orders

Source: This post is based on the article “Out of bounds: Unusual or onerous bail conditions ought to have no place in judicial orders” published in The Hindu on 25th July 2022.

Syllabus: GS 2 – Mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.

Relevance: About the criminal-justice reforms in India.

News: The Supreme Court recently disapproved the tendency among some courts to impose unusual conditions for bail.

About the case

In a land grabbing case, the interim bail order of the District Magistrate, asked the person to take possession of the property and, after putting up a boundary wall and barbed wire around it and deliver it to the Custodian, Evacuee/Enemy Property.

The Allahabad High Court also granted interim bail based on similar conditions. But the Supreme Court had taken an exception and asked the lower courts to not impose conditions that went beyond what was necessary to ensure the presence or attendance of an accused during the trial.

What are the conditions to grant bail?

The conditions for not granting bail have specific objectives. Such as preventing the accused from fleeing justice and precluding any scope for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

These objectives are usually secured by directing them to stay in a particular place and asking them to record their presence before a police officer or a court at a specified frequency.

What are the previous instances of permitting bail with unusual conditions?

Some recent examples include a) being asked to do a spell of community service, b) apologising to victims, c) reading a moral treatise or chapters from Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography.

For instance, in 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered a man accused of molesting a woman to visit the victim at home and agree to her tying a ‘rakhi’. However, the SC denounced the attempt to convert a ‘molester’ into a ‘brother’ by judicial mandate.

What should be done?

The sharp observations, whether oral or part of detailed orders, can often help in conveying a sense of the judicial conscience. But their casual use of such will undermine public confidence in the court’s impartiality. The courts has to avoid these.