The Gujarat High Court has ruled that bail conditions requiring an accused to mark their presence at a police station could potentially lead to human rights abuses. This significant observation was made by Justice Gita Gopi while hearing a criminal revision application challenging the cancellation of bail.
In the case of Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed Thro Jamilsha Kadarsha Saiyed vs State Of Gujarat & Anr (RICRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1058 of 2024), the court examined the legality of cancelling bail based on the accused’s failure to strictly adhere to reporting conditions.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Kadarsha Latifsha Saiyed, was granted bail on May 24, 2024, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kutch, in connection with an FIR filed on May 10, 2024, for offenses under Sections 365, 341, 323, 506(2), 120B, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the bail conditions required the applicant to mark his presence at the concerned police station on the 1st and 16th of every month between 11 am and 2 pm.
On June 1, 2024, the applicant allegedly failed to report within the specified time slot. Consequently, the prosecution filed an application for cancellation of bail, which was granted by the Magistrate on June 7, 2024. The applicant challenged this order in the High Court.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary issue before the court was whether a delay in reporting to the police station constitutes sufficient grounds for cancelling bail. Justice Gita Gopi emphasized that bail, once granted, should not be cancelled mechanically without considering supervening circumstances that render it no longer conducive to a fair trial.
The court observed: “The conditions of bail are to ensure that the accused would be available for trial. The learned Court should only be concerned about accused’s availability during the trial”.
Addressing the specific condition of reporting to the police station, the court noted: “It is needless to point out that such conditions of marking presence at Police Station would invite many grievances which may also lead to abuse of human rights and may give a scope of false allegations which would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and unverified aspects”.
The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order cancelling bail, deeming it “unjust, illegal and improper”. It also directed the return of Rs. 1,00,000 deposited by the applicant for a temporary suspension of bail conditions to attend Haj.
Key Observations
Justice Gopi made several important observations:
1. Bail conditions should primarily ensure the accused’s availability for trial, not impose excessive restrictions.
2. Investigating officers should have the flexibility to accommodate reasonable delays in reporting.
3. The potential for human rights abuses arises from strict adherence to such reporting conditions.
4. CCTV footage may not always be available to verify claims and counter-claims regarding an accused’s presence at the police station.
The case was argued by Advocate Ashish M. Dagli for the applicant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Hardik Mehta represented the State of Gujarat.
