NEW DELHI: Observing that severe and extreme conditions for bail total up to denying bail, the Supreme Court disapproved of the practice of enforcing such conditions leading to the implicated suffering in jail.A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian stated that jail is the exception and grant of bail is the guideline and in such a scenario, the conditions imposed on bail should not be unreasonable.

Noting that the implicated stayed in jail regardless of being approved bail in September because of not having the ability to satisfy the conditions, the Supreme Court modified the high court order and waived off the bail conditions.The Supreme Court did not concur with an order gone by the Rajasthan high court directing an implicated to transfer a fine of Rs 1 lakh in addition to a surety of the exact same quantity and two bail bonds of Rs 50,000 each for availing bail in an attempt to murder case and stated it was too onerous, leading to the implicated failing to adhere to the conditions.

Any other accused in a comparable scenario at this moment would not be in custody.

However, today appellant, since of the conditions enforced, has actually not had the ability to leave the jail.

Can the appellant, for not having the ability to comply with excessive requirements, be apprehended in custody endlessly? To keep the appellant in prison, that too in a case where he typically would have been given bail for the alleged offenses, is not just a symptom of injustice, however oppression itself, it said.

Keeping in mind that the accused stayed in prison despite being granted bail in September because of not having the ability to satisfy the conditions, the Supreme Court modified the high court order and waived off the bail conditions.

We are unable to appreciate the extreme conditions of bail enforced by the high court.

The truth that bail has actually been granted to the appellant herein is evidence enough to reveal that he is not to be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case.

While bail has actually been given to the appellant, the extreme conditions enforced have, in fact, in useful symptom, served as a rejection to the grant of bail.

If the appellant had paid the required amount, it would have been a various matter.

The truth that the appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still suffering in jail, is adequate indication that he was not able to make up the quantity, the bench said.Referring to different decisions of the peak court, the bench stated the conditions of bail cant be so onerous.A bench of Justices Krishna Murari - & V Ramasubramanian said that prison is the exception and grant of bail is the rule and in such a situation, the conditions imposed on bail needs to not be unreasonable.