Supreme Court Sets Aside Compensation Deposit as Bail Condition in Violent Crime Case

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 07, 2021. Citation: (2021) INSC 432. Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta. The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of whether a High Court can mandate the deposit of compensation to victims as a condition for granting bail. This case arose from a violent incident involving multiple individuals, where two people died. The appellants, accused of being involved in the altercation, were granted bail by the High Court but were required to deposit compensation to the victims’ families. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined whether such a condition was legally permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The bench was composed of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

On November 10, 2019, a violent incident occurred, allegedly triggered by members of a particular caste assisting the police. This led to a free fight where the appellants were present. Two individuals died from their injuries. On November 11, 2019, the Amreli Police Station registered an FIR (CR No. I-94 of 2019) against 13 individuals, including the appellants, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Gujarat Police Act. A counter-FIR (I-95/2019) was also filed against the complainant and other witnesses. The appellants were arrested on November 11, 2019, and were later granted bail by the High Court, subject to the condition of depositing Rs. 2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, who were accused Nos. 12 and 13 in the FIR, were arrested on November 11, 2019. They applied for bail, which was granted by the High Court on December 15, 2020. However, the High Court imposed a condition that they must deposit Rs. 2.00 lakh each as compensation to the victims within three months. The appellants challenged this condition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically concerning the imposition of compensation as a condition for bail. The appellants argued that the CrPC does not authorize such a condition. The relevant provisions are:

• Section 357 of the CrPC: This section deals with the power of the court to order compensation. It states: “357. Order to pay compensation. (1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied… (3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.”
• Section 235(2) of the CrPC: This section mandates that the judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing a sentence. It states: “235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction. (2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”
• Section 250(1) of the CrPC: This provision allows for compensation to be awarded to the accused if the court finds that there was no reasonable ground for the accusation. It states: “250. Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause. (1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid.”
• Section 372 of the CrPC: This section provides for the right of appeal against inadequacy of compensation.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the High Court’s condition of depositing compensation for bail was illegal, as there is no provision in the CrPC that allows for such a condition. They contended that:

• Compensation under Section 357 of the CrPC can only be ordered after the conclusion of the trial, when a sentence is imposed, not at the stage of granting bail.
• Section 235(2) of the CrPC requires a hearing on the question of sentence before passing a sentence, which supports the argument that compensation can only be determined after conviction.
• Section 250 of the CrPC provides for compensation to an accused who is acquitted, indicating that compensation is generally considered at the end of the trial.
• The right of appeal against inadequate compensation under Section 372 of the CrPC implies that compensation is determined after a sentence or fine is imposed.

The State was unable to provide any counter-arguments or legal basis for the High Court’s condition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court could impose a condition for deposit of compensation to the victims as a pre-condition for grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision allows a court to order compensation to victims when imposing a sentence or fine. The court noted that this section applies at the time of passing judgment, not during bail proceedings.
• Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section mandates that a judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing a sentence.
• Section 250(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section allows for compensation to be awarded to the accused if the court finds that there was no reasonable ground for the accusation.
• Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for the right of appeal against inadequacy of compensation.

The Supreme Court also referred to the following case:

• Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [1977 SCR (3) 132]: This case was cited to emphasize that the nature of the crime, the injury suffered, the capacity to pay, and other relevant circumstances must be considered when fixing the amount of fine or compensation. The court noted that these considerations are relevant post-conviction.

Judgment

Authorities and How they were viewed by the Court:

• The Court held that Section 357 of the CrPC* is applicable only at the time of passing judgment and not during the grant of bail.
• The Court used Section 235(2) of the CrPC* to support the argument that the sentence must precede grant of compensation.
• The Court cited Section 250(1) of the CrPC* to demonstrate that compensation is generally considered at the end of the trial.
• The Court referred to Section 372 of the CrPC* to show that appeal against inadequate compensation is possible only after a sentence is imposed.
• The Court cited Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [1977 SCR (3) 132]* to emphasize that compensation is determined post-conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal framework of the CrPC, which clearly outlines the stages at which compensation can be awarded. The Court emphasized that compensation is a measure to be taken post-conviction, after a full trial, and not as a condition for granting bail. The Court also noted that while monetary conditions can be imposed for bail, these cannot be in the nature of compensation to be disbursed to victims.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the CrPC. The Court held that the High Court’s order was not in accordance with the law. The Court observed that the objective of the law is to provide compensation to victims, but it cannot be at the stage of bail. The court stated: “In our view the objective is clear that in cases of offences against body, compensation to the victim should be a methodology for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary harassment, compensation has been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings had been started. Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the stage of grant of bail.” The court also clarified that while monetary conditions can be imposed for bail, they cannot be in the nature of compensation to be disbursed to victims. The court stated: “We may hasten to add that we are not saying that no monetary condition can be imposed for grant of bail. We say so as there are cases of offences against property or otherwise but that cannot be a compensation to be deposited and disbursed as if that grant has to take place as a condition of the person being enlarged on bail.”

The Court also considered the fact that other accused persons were granted bail without such conditions. The court noted: “Not only that, the other accused Nos.3, 9, 10 & 6 had been granted bail without imposing the aforesaid condition.”

Key Takeaways

• Imposing compensation to victims as a condition for bail is illegal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Compensation can only be ordered after a full trial and conviction, when a sentence is imposed.
• Monetary conditions can be imposed for bail, but they cannot be in the nature of compensation to be disbursed to victims.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not a form of punishment, and conditions should not be punitive in nature.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s condition requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 2.00 lakh each as compensation. Instead, the Court imposed a condition that the appellants would not enter the geographical limits of Amreli for six months, except for marking their presence at the police station and attending court proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that compensation to victims cannot be imposed as a condition for grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This judgment clarifies the correct procedure for awarding compensation, which is after a full trial and conviction, when a sentence is imposed. This decision reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce a new legal principle but clarifies the application of existing provisions of CrPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified that imposing a condition of depositing compensation to victims as a prerequisite for granting bail is not permissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court emphasized that compensation is a measure to be taken post-conviction, after a full trial, and not as a condition for granting bail. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and imposed a different condition, restricting the appellants’ movement within Amreli.