The Jharkhand High Court has held that imposing an inherently onerous or impossible-to-comply condition while granting bail amounts to ‘granting bail with one hand and taking it away with the other’. The observation was made by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi while hearing a petition seeking modification of an anticipatory bail order passed in 2014.
The petitioner, Sapath Kumar Chandra @ Sapath Kumar Chand, had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on March 26, 2014. The bail order required him to pay ₹35,000 each to three individuals—Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Rajesh Sah, and Arun Singh—and to furnish a bank draft of ₹23,000 in favour of Jeevan Bhagat. These payments together amounted to ₹1.28 lakh. Additionally, the order directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Godda.
The petitioner submitted that he had been unable to arrange the required sum of ₹1.28 lakh and, consequently, could not surrender before the court within the stipulated period. He stated that he had now arranged the amount and was ready to deposit it within a week. On this basis, he sought a further two weeks to surrender before the concerned court.
The State opposed the plea, contending that despite being granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner had failed to surrender. It further argued that the bail order dated back to 2014 and the modification petition had been filed after a considerable lapse of time.
The High Court noted that the bail granted to the petitioner was statutory bail and observed that the imposition of conditions, while within judicial discretion, must be grounded in sound judicial principles. It emphasized that conditions which are inherently onerous or incapable of being complied with by the accused frustrate the very purpose of bail.
The Court 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.’ It further observed that bail conditions should not be imposed merely for the sake of imposing conditions.
Taking note of the petitioner’s assertion that he was now in a position to deposit the required amount within a week, the Court granted him a further two weeks to surrender before the concerned court. Accordingly, the 2014 anticipatory bail order was modified to extend the time for surrender, while all other conditions of the bail order were retained.
The Court also observed that there is no limitation for approaching the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for seeking such relief.
The matter was listed as Cr.M.P. No. 2606 of 2026. The petitioner was represented by Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate, and the State by Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate.