Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an incident on 10.11.2019, where a free fight led to the death of two individuals, resulting in FIRs against multiple accused, including the appellants. The appellants, arrested on 11.11.2019, sought bail but were granted bail with a condition to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims. The appellants challenged this condition, arguing that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 does not authorize such a requirement for bail. The court examined relevant provisions, particularly Section 357, which stipulates that compensation can only be ordered post-conviction. The court noted that compensation is a matter of discretion and should follow a trial. It also highlighted that other accused had been granted bail without similar conditions, indicating inconsistency. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the compensation condition, and imposed alternative conditions for bail, including restrictions on entering certain geographical areas. The appeal was allowed, leaving costs to the parties.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Conditions - Imposition of Compensation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, Section 357 - The court held that compensation can only be ordered after a trial and conviction, thus the condition imposed for bail requiring compensation was unsustainable. The court emphasized that compensation is a matter of discretion post-conviction and cannot be a bail condition (Paras 18-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could impose a condition for payment of compensation as a prerequisite for granting bail.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the condition requiring the appellants to deposit Rs.2.00 lakh each as compensation, and imposed alternative bail conditions.
Law Points
- Bail conditions
- Compensation
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1908
- Section 357
- Section 235
- Section 250
