Interest-Of-Justice

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to one Sheikh Javed Iqbal spreads light on the expression ” Interest of Justice”

The expression ‘interest of justice’ finding place in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. means only good administration of justice or advancing the trial process. It cannot be given any further broader meaning to curtail the liberty of an accused granted bail. Courts cannot impose freakish conditions while granting bail. Bail conditions must be consistent with the object of granting bail. While imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused who is ordered to be released on bail can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required. Even when an accused is in jail, he cannot be deprived of his right to life which is a basic human right of every individual. This Court held that
bail conditions cannot be so onerous so as to frustrate the order of bail itself.

We are dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established. So long as he 22 is is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence applicable. He cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. The Courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the Courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for imposing the bail conditions warranted by law. Bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of bail itself. For example, the Court may impose a condition of periodically reporting to the police station/Court or not travelling abroad without prior permission. Where circumstances require, the Court may impose a condition restraining an accused from entering a particular area to protect the prosecution witnesses or the victims. But the Court cannot impose a condition on the accused to keep the Police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another. The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21. 

If a constant vigil is kept on every movement of the accused released on bail by the use of technology or otherwise, it will infringe the 23 rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, including the right to privacy. The reason is that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on the accused by imposing drastic bail conditions will amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is released on bail. Such a condition cannot be a condition of bail. A condition cannot be imposed while granting bail which is impossible for the accused to comply with. If such a condition is imposed, it will deprive an accused of bail, though he is otherwise entitled to it.