The Supreme Court has stayed an “unusual order” passed by the Patna High Court putting an “absurd” condition on a victim, acting as surety for bail of a man accused of procuration of a minor girl for illicit sexual relation.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan said it is very unfortunate to note that because of such absurd condition imposed by the High Court, the petitioner, although ordered to be released on bail way back in July 2023, is still languishing in jail.
The court said the condition imposed by the High Court by its order of July 25, 2023, as regards asking the victim to stand as a surety is stayed from its operation.
The bench ordered the petitioner to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions that the trial court may deem fit to impose.
Petitioner Sharwan Kumar Yadav alias Sharwan Yadav was aggrieved with the condition set by the High Court in its order of January 12, 2024.
The petitioner prayed for bail before the High Court in connection with the First Information Report of January 26, 2023 registered with Bahera Police Station, Darbhanga, State of Bihar for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
After hearing his counsel, the bench said, “We take notice of a very unusual order passed by the High Court. The High Court vide order dated 25 July 2023 ordered release of the petitioner on bail, but subject to the condition that the surety shall be the victim. It is the case of the petitioner that it was practically impossible to ask the victim to stand as a surety.”
The court noted in such circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application seeking modification of the condition. The modification application, however, also came to be rejected by the High Court by an order of January 12, 2024.
The court issued notice to the Bihar government, returnable in four weeks, with a direction that the condition imposed by the High Court by its order of July 25, 2023, as regards asking the victim to stand as a surety is stayed from its operation.
Before the High Court’s single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the petitioner has contended that the situation is that the informant and her family did not permit the victim to execute the bail bond in favour of the petitioner as she is in clutches/custody of the informant so the condition may be modified to the extent that “one of the bailors should be the close relative of the petitioner” in place of “one of the bailors should be the victim”.
The High Court, however, did not agree to the plea citing Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which read, “Court not to alter judgment. Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
Comments
0 comment