Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the condition imposed by the appellate court requiring deposit of one-fourth of the fine amount as a pre-condition for suspension of sentence and release on bail was excessive and liable to be modified.
Analysis: The application arose from a conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the appellate court had granted bail subject to deposit of a substantial portion of the fine. The Court considered the scheme of Sections 357 and 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the settled principle that, while an appellate court may impose terms when suspending sentence, such terms must be fair, reasonable and not so harsh as to amount to denial of bail. Reliance was placed on the principle that conditions attached to suspension of sentence must not be arbitrary or onerous, and that personal liberty under Article 21 requires a judicially balanced approach. Applying that principle, the Court found the deposit condition to be excessive in the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The condition requiring deposit of one-fourth of the fine amount was held to be onerous and was modified so that only 10% of the fine amount would be deposited as the pre-condition for release on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: A court may impose conditions while suspending sentence and granting bail, but such conditions must remain reasonable and cannot be so onerous as to effectively deny the statutory relief of bail.