Supreme Court on Payment of Compensation in Bail Matters

INTRODUCTION

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Dharmesh and Another v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 458, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed whether a condition to deposit monetary compensation for grant of bail is justified or not.  

 

FACTS

The brief facts of the case are that a fight took place between the Appellants and certain other persons, that led to registration of FIR for commission of various offences such as S. 302 (Murder), S. 307 (Attempt to Murder) etc. and consequent arrest of the Appellants. The Appellants applied for bail. Though the bail was granted to the Appellants, but a condition was imposed on them for bail, requiring them to deposit Rs. 2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims before the trial court. This order of grant of bail was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Appellants on the following grounds: -

 

GROUNDS

a. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “CrPC”) entitling the Court to impose such a condition for payment of compensation for grant of bail.

 

b. Section 357 of CrPC provides that while imposing a fine or a sentence, a Court may order for payment of compensation to any person for any loss or injury caused by the offence. But this provision is applicable only when a fine or a sentence is being imposed i.e., at the time of conviction and hence, it cannot be applied at the stage of grant of bail.

 

c. Another provision for grant of compensation is Section 250 of CrPC that provides that where an accused is acquitted, the Court may order for grant of compensation to the accused who has been acquitted if the Court is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against him. Thus, under Section 250 as well, there is no provision for payment of compensation at the stage of grant of bail.

 

HELD BY THE COURT

According to the Court, compensation under CrPC is granted for redemption to the victim or for preventing unnecessary harassment of the accused in case meaningless criminal proceedings are initiated. Upon cumulatively considering the legal position and the facts of the case, the Court was of the view that the quantum of compensation can hardly be determined at the stage of grant of bail.

 

However, the Court clarified that this does not mean that no monetary condition could be imposed for grant bail as in some cases, to secure the interest of the property or the subject-matter, it is imperative to impose a monetary condition for grant of bail, but such condition cannot be a compensation for enlarging a person on bail.

 

Therefore, the direction contained in the impugned order for deposit of compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakh was set aside, and such condition was substituted with the condition that the Appellants will not enter the geographical limits of District Amreli where the alleged incident took place.

 

This was all about the case. So, what are my concluding remarks?

CONCLUSION 

The problem of imposing hyper technical and arbitrary conditions in Bail Orders seems to be on a rise. By asking an accused to pay compensation to the victim at the stage of grant of bail, the accused is being adjudged guilty without a proper trial. Suppose the accused pays compensation at the stage of grant of bail and thereafter, he is acquitted in the trial. Would he get the compensation paid back? No. He would not get it back and it would be a true travesty of justice. Thus, I feel that the Supreme Court rightly set aside such an Order requiring deposit of compensation for grant of Bail.