Bail Conditions Such As Marking Presence At Police Station May Constitute Abuse Of Human Rights: Gujarat HC

The case involved the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, who was required to report to the police station on specific dates and times. The prosecution moved to cancel the bail after the accused allegedly failed to comply on one occasion, citing the accused's tardiness due to attending a funeral.

A Bench of Justice Gita Gopi held, “It is needless to point out that such conditions of marking presence at Police Station would invite many grievances which may also lead to abuse of human rights and may give a scope of false allegations which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and unverified aspects. Many a times, the CCTV Footage would not be available to the Court to verify the aspect about the authenticity of the claims and counter claims.”

Advocate Ashish M Dagli appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Hardik Mehta appeared for the Respondent.

The Court highlighted that bail conditions should primarily ensure the accused's availability for trial proceedings. She stressed that imposing requirements to report to the Investigating Officer (IO) could create unnecessary friction and situations that might enable police interference contrary to court orders. The Court noted that such conditions could also lead to false allegations, multiple legal proceedings, and difficulties in verifying claims due to potential unavailability of CCTV footage.

The High Court criticized the Magistrate's decision to cancel bail as overly harsh, stating it should not have been done unless significant new circumstances arose. The Court emphasized that the IO has the discretion to accommodate reasonable requests regarding the timing of reporting, which in this case was not properly considered.

The Court further highlighted, “In the present case, the applicant was even permitted to attend ‘Haj’ for the period between 06.06.2024 to 20.07.2024 and such permission was granted by suspending the conditions taking into consideration all the facts that the applicant would attend the trial in connection with the subject First Information Report.”

The Court noted, “Such conditions for marking presence before the Investigating Officer would always create friction and would unreasonably call for the unfavorable situation which would give leverage to the Investigating Officer, to even frustrate the order of the Court wherein in this case, the applicant was even permitted to attend ‘Haj’. The intention of the Police was also required to be examined by the Court.”

The High Court concluded by overturning the bail cancellation order, describing it as unjust and improper. Additionally, it revoked the forfeiture of the ₹1 lakh deposited by the accused and directed its release, while reaffirming that the accused must continue to mark his presence before the trial court.

Cause Title: Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [2024:GUJHC:37264]