Published on: October 24, 2023 at 11:38 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Munish Bhasin V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the it is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Sessions Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all.
11. The conditions which can be imposed by the court while granting anticipatory bail are enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and sub-section (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed
(i) to secure the presence of the accused before the investigating officer or before the court,
(ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course of justice,
(iii) to prevent him from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts before the police or court, or
(iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or to maintain law and order, etc. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on court under Section 438 of the Code.
12. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the court under Section 438 of the Code, the court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under Section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code.
Drafted by Abhijit Mishra