#Bail Condition

[seemabhatnagar]

"Supreme Court Quashes Coercive Bail Condition: Upholds Principles Against Monetary Recovery in Criminal Proceedings"

The Supreme Court was shocked to find that, despite its prior judgments deprecating practices, where criminal law was used as a tool for recovery of money, lower courts were still imposing conditions akin to recovery proceedings as part of bail orders.

The Supreme Court set aside the condition requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount, stating that it could not be sustained. However, it upheld the grant of bail with the other conditions imposed by the trial court, except for the one set aside. The special leave petition was disposed of in these terms, and all pending applications were also disposed of.

Anjali Kumari v. The State of Bihar and Another

SLP(Crl)6298/2024

Before the Supreme Court of India

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice C T Ravikumar J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra J

Fact: Anjali Kumari, the petitioner, faced trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for issuing a dishonored cheque. She was initially granted anticipatory bail, but due to its violation, a non-bailable warrant was issued. The petitioner sought to recall the warrant and requested bail from the trial court. The trial court granted bail on the condition that she provide a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of the same amount and pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant on the next date.

Legal Issue : Whether the condition imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court, requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the cheque amount as a precondition for bail, was legally sustainable.

Contention of the Parties :

Petitioner's Submission : The condition to pay 20% of the cheque amount was unjust and contrary to established legal principles, specifically citing the decision in "Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi" [2023 INSC 596]. It was contended that criminal proceedings should not be converted into mechanisms for monetary recovery.

Respondent's Submission: The condition was justified under the circumstances.

Court's Observation: The imposition of the condition requiring payment of 20% of the cheque amount for bail is improper. The Court reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a tool for coercive recovery of money and cited the precedent set in "Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi."

[thedragonagelesbian]

good things happen. you sure you can handle it? and how about 'i'll enjoy it while it lasts'?/coming from you that's actual optimism and you're a bad influence and you think i'd go somewhere?/not yet./not ever not ever not ever not!!!!!!!!!!!!! ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Alleged Safe Crackers Held," Border Cities Star. May 30, 1933. Page 19. ---- BAIL IS $10,000 ---- Suspects in London Get Remand to June 6 ---- LONDON, Ont., May 30. - The four alleged safe-crackers who provincial police claim, have been operating in Western Ontario in recent weeks were ordered held on $10,000 cash bail each when they appeared before Magistrate C. W. Hawkshaw in county police court yesterday.

They were remanded until June 6, as police have not completed their investigation into the robberies charged to the gang. The accused are Roy and Charles Woods, Albert Fink and Casey Blake.

On their appearance yesterday, Crown Attorney Judd advised that heavy bail be set by the court. According to Inspector H. Gardner,

of the London division of the O. P. P.. there is evidence linking the "mob" with safe and store "jobs" at Lucan, Denfield, Mount Brydges, Forest, Clandeboye and Exeter.

Police are still checking on Fink and Roy Woods in connection with the Ilderton bank robbery late in March, in which two young gunmen were put to flight by a gun in the hands of Lloyd Denning, bank teller.

Efforts to identify them have failed so far, but police haven't closed their case against the pair, who were released from Kingston penitentiary a short while before the Ilderton raid.

[nsemkekanews]

Chairman Wontumi Withdraws Application to Review Bail Conditions - GhArticles.com

Chairman Wontumi Withdraws Application to Review Bail Conditions – GhArticles.com The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Bernard Antwi Boasiako, popularly known as Chairman Wontumi, has withdrawn an application seeking a review of his bail conditions. The application, initially filed on Friday, May 30, 2025, requested the court to reconsider the bail terms, citing…

[nova-reaper-universe]

“Spooky, why don’t you pick a place for us to go?”

- Famous last words of a Steven who is in a group of people who cannot get along

[tracknews1]

Portable Complies with Bail Conditions, Kneels in Gratitude to Magistrate

The contentious Nigerian musician, Habeeb Okikiola, widely recognized as Portable, has satisfied his bail conditions following his arraignment in court. The Nigerian Voice recalls that Portable appeared before Magistrate O.L. Oke at an Ogun State Magistrate Court in Isabo, Abeokuta, where he entered a plea of not guilty to the charges leveled against him. The court extended bail to him in the…

[lawyerscorner]

5 Things You Need to Know About House Arrest

If you have committed a crime, you may be sentenced to jail. But, depending on the circumstances, the judge may allow you to spend your time in your home under house arrest. House arrest is not like it is on TV, and you certainly do not have as many luxuries as you think. While you are naturally free to be in your home and away from the discomfort of jail, you may want to know the facts about house arrest and how it will impact your time at home.

YOU MAY BE GIVEN BREAKS

In some house arrest cases, you may be given “breaks”, as long as they are granted by the judge. That means you may be able to leave the house for doctors’ appointments, counseling, court hearings, community service time or even work. But, you will still be required to wear the ankle monitor and you will only be permitted to leave your home at specific times.

If the monitor shows you are away from your home at an unauthorized or not permitted time, then the police will be notified and you will be picked up. In some cases, the judge may only let you leave on special permissions, and the rest of the time you are confined to your house 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR HOUSE ARREST

House arrest is not free. In fact, the courts make up for the savings of putting you in jail or prison, which average about $20,000 a year in expenses per person. By confining you at home, it only costs the courts about $6,000 per year. But, you will be handling some of the expenses instead of the court.

Just some of the expenses you may be required to pay include:

Weekly or monthly costs associated with monitoring you (this includes the cost of the monitoring service and the device)

Fines and fees associated with house arrest

Maintenance fees for the ankle monitoring device—and replacement costs if you break it

YOU DO NOT RECEIVE TIME CREDITS

The biggest disadvantage to house arrest is that you do not receive time credits. That means you will not have any credit toward a lesser jail sentence or good behavior. So, if you have been sentenced to 120 days of house arrest, you must serve 120 days of that house arrest to satisfy the requirement.

YOU MAY BE ASSIGNED HOUSE ARREST WITHOUT BEING CONVICTED

House arrest isn’t just for those who have been convicted. It can also happen while you are waiting for your trial and it may be assigned as a condition of your bail. There are plenty of instances where individuals facing non-violent crimes may be sentenced to in house placement to ensure that they show up for trial.

YOU CAN GO TO JAIL

You have strict rules during your house arrest and if you violate any conditions of your house arrest, you could wind up back in jail to serve out the rest of your sentence, similar to a parole sentence. Judges are harsher on those on house arrest because it is a privilege to be able to stay at home; therefore, if you violate your rules even once, the judge may have you finish your sentence in jail or prison.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Upholding Harmony: Allahabad High Court Facilitates Reconciliation in a Complex Bail Case"

Can the law transform strained relationships into harmonious unions?

In a decisive judgment, the Allahabad High Court weaves justice with compassion, emphasizing the significance of trust, responsibility, and the well-being of the innocent amidst allegations of betrayal and broken promises.

#liveinrelationship #reconciliation #childwelfare #SpecialMarriageAct

➡️The applicant, Atul Gautam, has been in custody since September 16, 2024, in connection with a Criminal Case Under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 IPC at Madiaon Police Station, Lucknow.

🔹The prosecutrix, a Muslim woman, alleges breach of a promise to marry, leading to strained relations. The couple had been in a live-in relationship and had a 5-month-old daughter.

#judicialsensitivity #societalharmony #amicableresolution

🔴Whether bail should be granted to the applicant, given the allegations of rape under false promise to marry, coupled with the applicant's stated willingness to marry the prosecutrix and secure her and the child’s future.

#mutualresponsibilities #evolvingjudiciary #womenandchildwelfare

➡️The petitioner Atul Gautam's submission before the Court was

🔹False implication by the prosecutrix upon him.

🔹He is willing to marry the prosecutrix under the Special Marriage Act.

🔹He offered to secure the financial future of the prosecutrix and child by creating a Fixed Deposit (FDR) of ₹5 lakhs.

➡️The Counsel for the State and the prosecutrix initially opposed the bail, citing apprehensions regarding the applicant’s conduct post-marriage and the prosecutrix’s security.

#bailcase #bailcondition #justice #AllahabadHighCourt

➡️The High Court observed

🔹The Court found a mutual willingness of both parties to reconcile and live together as husband and wife.

🔹The prosecutrix expressed concerns about her and her child’s monetary security.

🔹The Court considered the applicant’s offer to establish a ₹5 lakh FDR and his willingness to marry promptly as bona fide steps toward resolving the dispute.

#monetarysecurity #Rupeesfivelakhfixeddeposit

➡️The High Court granted bail with the condition

🔹Initiate marriage proceedings under the Special Marriage Act within seven days of release.

🔹Ensure the marriage is registered with the concerned authority.

🔹Create a ₹5 lakh Fixed Deposit in the name of the infant child through the prosecutrix.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Est-ce le roi des voleurs d'automobiles," La Patrie. October 6, 1933. Page 3. ---- Soupçonné d'avoir été l'un des principaux membres d'une bande internationale organisée pour voler des automobiles, et accusé de conspiration pour recel, Jimmy King Horn, 33 ans, 2250 rue Knox, a subi son enquête préliminaire hier après-midi devant le juge Lacroix. Le cautionnement de Horn, qui avait été fixé à $2.000 par le juge Tétreau a été renouvelé par le juge Lacroix.

Le procureur de l'accusé, Me Paul Désy, a tenté de faire réduire ce cautionnement, mais cette demande fut refusée par le juge qui déclara que, d'après la preuve présentée jusqu'à présent par la Couronne, le prévenu semblait faire partie d'une organisation internationale.

Pendant assez longtemps l'accusé fut surveillé par la police qui décida finalement de l'arrêter. Depuis son arrestation il a protesté de son Innocence. Il devra maintenant sabir son procès.

[gurutrends]

Speed Darlington Lawyer Ready to Meet Bail Conditions Amid Unlawful Detention Claims

The legal team of Nigerian singer Darlington Achakpo, popularly known as Speed Darlington, has announced its readiness to fulfill the bail conditions set by the Federal High Court in Abuja. In a letter addressed to Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) Galadanchi of the Force Intelligence Bureau (FIB), the law firm of Deji Adeyanju and Partners confirmed they would be present on January 8,…

[alabs1]

Bail Conditions Fulfilled: Dele Farotimi Walks Free From Custody

Dele Farotimi, a human rights advocate, has been released from the correctional centre in Ekiti state after meeting his bail conditions. Farotimi was released on Tuesday morning. Last Friday, a magistrate court in Ado-Ekiti granted N30 million bail to Farotimi.

[workersbushtelegraph]

Political arrest of activist opposed to genocide

On November 8, 2024, Ian Curr was arrested and detained at the Carina Police Station on an arrest warrant related to an assault by police on union members and retired workers at the May 6 Labour Day Rally. The police assault commenced while former Premier Steven Miles was addressing unionists about his working class credentials. Here is Channel 9 footage of his assault by police. In typical…

[rightnewshindi]

आप नेता सत्येंद्र जैन को 18 महीने बाद मिली जमानत, जानें कोर्ट ने क्या रखी तीन बड़ी शर्तें

आप नेता सत्येंद्र जैन को 18 महीने बाद मिली जमानत, जानें कोर्ट ने क्या रखी तीन बड़ी शर्तें #News #NewsUpdate #newsfeed #newsbreakapp

Delhi News: दिल्ली की एक अदालत ने 18 माह से अधिक समय तक जेल में रहने के बाद शुक्रवार को आम आदमी पार्ट�� (आप) के नेता और दिल्ली के पूर्व कैबिनेट मंत्री सत्येंद्र जैन को मनी लॉन्ड्रिंग के एक मामले में जमानत दे दी। कोर्ट ने सुनवाई में देरी और लंबे समय तक जेल में रहने का हवाला देते हुए पूर्व मंत्री को राहत देने का फैसला किया। कोर्ट ने जमानत के साथ तीन शर्तें भी लगाईं। वहीं, देर शाम जैन जेल से बाहर आ…

[kids-worldfun]

How Castle Bail Bonds Ensures Quick Release: A Comprehensive Guide

In the annoying moments following an arrest, one of the number one concerns for both the accused and their loved ones is securing a brief release from prison. The procedure may be daunting, with prison jargon, courtroom processes, and monetary concerns creating vast hurdles. This is where Castle Bail Bonds comes into play, imparting a dependable and efficient method to navigate the complexities…

[seemabhatnagar]

A Story of Legal Battles and Marital Discord

The Beginning:

Sudeep Chatterjee and his wife were on the verge of divorce. The once-loving relationship had deteriorated into a conflict marked by distrust and discord. Amidst this turmoil, Sudeep was confronted with a complaint filed by his wife, accusing him of cruelty and demanding dowry. Fearing imminent arrest, he sought pre-arrest bail from the court. His pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Katihar.

Sudip Chatterjee v. The State of Bihar and Another

Crl Appeal 2011/2024

Before The Supreme Court of India

Heard by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice C T Ravikumar J & Hon'ble Mr.Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra J

High Court's Improbable Condition:

Sudeep's quest for bail led him to the High Court, which granted him provisional pre-arrest bail but with conditions that seemed almost impossible to fulfill. The court required Sudeep to file a joint affidavit with his wife, stating their agreement to live together and his commitment to take care of all her physical and financial needs. Additionally, the court mandated that there should be no interference from Sudeep's family members. This arrangement was to last for only four weeks, after which the couple was expected to withdraw the divorce case.

"How is this possible when there is matrimonial discord?" the condition seemed impractical and improbable, given the existing strain in their relationship. It felt like an imposition that could further sour their already fragile relationship.

A Husband's Struggle:

Sudeep was caught in a dilemma. On one hand, he wanted to avoid arrest; on the other, the conditions set by the High Court appeared to dominate him and undermine his sense of fairness. The conditions suggested a forced reunion, which seemed unlikely to heal the deep-seated issues between him and his wife.

Moreover, the conditions risked giving his wife a sense of dominance, further complicating the possibility of reconciliation. Sudeep and his wife had shown a mild willingness to rethink their relationship, but these unrealistic conditions threatened to extinguish any remaining hope of a reunion.

Supreme Court's Intervention:

Realizing the impracticality of the High Court's conditions, Sudeep approached the Supreme Court by way of Criminal Apeal. The apex court granted leave to hear the case.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar J, presiding over the case, noted a fundamental legal principle: 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia' – the law does not compel a person to do what they cannot possibly perform. The Supreme Court emphasized that conditions for bail should not be so burdensome that they effectively deny the relief sought.

The Final Judgment:

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court set aside the impractical conditions imposed by the High Court. The court recognized that expecting a couple on the brink of divorce to live together harmoniously under such constraints was unrealistic and counterproductive.

The Supreme Court made the provisional bail granted by the High Court absolute, subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Meaning thereby that Sudeep could avoid arrest without the undue burden of improbable conditions, allowing the legal process to proceed fairly.

Seema Bhatnagar

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"JURY CLEARS WOMAN OF RELIEF CHARGES," Toronto Star. June 16, 1933. Page 20. ---- Relief Administrators and Investigator Give Contradictory Evidence ---- Oshawa, June 16 - Contradictory evidence by Relief Administrator J. C. McGill of the Oshawa public welfare department, and by Miss Lois Faulds, investigator, preceded the jury acquittal of Mrs. Nellie Harris at Whitby late yesterday on the charge of receiving relief under false pretences.

Miss Faulds admitted that she and Mr. McGill had talked over the case after witnesses had been excluded from the court.

Relief Administrator McGill alleged Mrs. Harris had taken an affidavit to the effect she was destitute, and following that had been given relief. It was disclosed from other sources that she had money owing her.

Runs Too Fast "Stay where you are, Mr. Skinty; you can run too fast," shouted Chief of Police Owen D. Friend when Thos. Skinty made a move to leave the courtroom yesterday after Magistrate Creighton reserved judgment for a day. Skinty explained he wanted to make arrangements by telephone for bail. He was allowed to go with a police constable. The charge preferred was illegal possession of liquor.

Persons entered the cellar of Mrs. J. MacDonald, 357 Jarvis St., yesterday and stole a quantity of meat.