The Jharkhand High Court has observed that imposing an inherently onerous or incapable-of-compliance condition while granting bail would amount to “granting bail with one hand and taking it away with the other.”

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while considering a petition seeking modification of a 2014 anticipatory bail order which required the petitioner to pay ₹35,000 each to three persons and furnish a bank draft of ₹23,000 in favour of another person, apart from furnishing a bail bond and sureties.

The petitioner had earlier been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on March 26, 2014, subject to certain conditions. He was directed to pay ₹35,000 each to Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Sah and Arun Singh and furnish a bank draft of ₹23,000 issued in the name of Jeevan Bhagat. The amounts together came to ₹1.28 lakh.

The petitioner submitted that he had been unable to arrange the amount and, consequently, could not surrender before the court within the stipulated period. He contended that he had now arranged the amount and was in a position to deposit it within a week. He therefore sought a further two weeks to surrender before the court.

The State opposed the plea, pointing out that despite having been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner had failed to surrender. It was further submitted that the bail order dated back to 2014 and the modification petition had been filed after a considerable lapse of time.

Considering the matter, the High Court noted that the bail granted to the petitioner was statutory bail and that the coordinate Bench had imposed an onerous condition while granting it, thereby frustrating the very purpose of bail. The Court observed that while both the grant of bail and the imposition of conditions involve an exercise of judicial discretion, such conditions must rest on sound judicial principles and cannot be arbitrary or mechanical. It held:

“Under the guise of imposing bail conditions, no onerous condition should be imposed. Conditions which are inherently onerous or incapable of being complied with by the accused would amount to granting bail with one hand and taking it away with the other.”

The Court further observed that bail conditions should not be imposed merely for the sake of imposing conditions. In the present case, it noted that apart from the payments totalling ₹1.28 lakh, the earlier order had required the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda.

The Court took note of the petitioner's submission that his inability to arrange the requisite amount had prevented him from surrendering and that he was now ready to comply with the condition. It also observed that there was no limitation for approaching the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In view of the petitioner's statement that he would deposit the amount within one week, the High Court granted him a further two weeks to surrender before the concerned court.

Accordingly, the 2014 anticipatory bail order was modified to that extent, while all its remaining conditions were kept intact.

Case Title: Sapath Kumar Chandra @ Sapath Kumar Chand v. State of Jharkhand

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 2606 of 2026

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate

For the State: Mr. K.K. Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order