Supreme Court has struck the right note Voicing his strong disapproval of the tendency of some courts to impose unusual conditions for bail. In the case of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, the Allahabad High Court had granted interim bail in a ‘land-grabbing’ case, but Regular bail made contingent on the measurement of a piece of property, fully cooperating with wall and barb-wiring Measures 13.842 hectares. The allegation against him is that the land vacated by a man who went to Pakistan at the time of partition was “captured” and a university was built on it by a trust headed by him. However, in the interim bail order, the District Magistrate, Rampur was asked to take possession of the property and hand it over to the Custodian, Evacuee/Enemy Property, Mumbai by erecting a boundary wall and barbed wire around it. The apex court had taken exception to the tendency among some judges to venture beyond the limits of a given case and to go beyond the conditions necessary to ensure the presence or presence of an accused during trial. It is quite well established that the conditions for granting bail have specific purposes: to prevent the accused from escaping justice and to prevent any scope for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. These purposes are generally secured by directing them to stay at a particular place and by asking them to record their appearance at a specified frequency before a police officer or court. Courts are generally not expected to impose any condition that may impede the accused’s other liberties or be too difficult to comply with.
It is not uncommon for bail courts to add certain unusual conditions to certain cases. Being asked to do community service, apologizing to victims, reading moral texts or chapters in Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography are some recent examples. In 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered a man accused of molesting a woman to meet the victim at home and agree to tie her a ‘rakhi’, a condition that stunned the Supreme Court, which has called for ‘molesting’. ‘ Condemned the attempt to change. In a ‘brother’ by judicial mandate. The apex court’s re-statement of its disapproval in another case should have a beneficial effect on the courts below. Similarly, it is also not unknown to include unusually harsh oral remarks and personal opinion in judicial orders. Examples are the legacies of judges and making controversial remarks in matters of religion and culture. While scathing remarks, whether oral or part of elaborate orders, can often help convey a sense of judicial discretion, their absurd use is avoided in a way that undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the court. A judicial order can be strict and temperate at the same time, and it does not require any unusual conditions or unnecessary this coincidence To advance your argument.