Allahabad High Court Modifies Bail Conditions, Emphasizes Judicial Discipline

High Court reduces bail amount for petitioner citing financial hardship, stresses adherence to higher court guidelines.

In a notable decision, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Vinod Diwakar, has modified the bail conditions for Pappu Met @ Pappu, a petitioner in a case involving the theft of buffaloes. The court reduced the personal bond requirement from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,000, along with one surety of like amount, highlighting the importance of considering the financial capacity of the accused when setting bail terms.

The petitioner, Pappu Met @ Pappu, was initially granted bail by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, with the condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of the same amount. However, the petitioner contended his financial inability to comply with such stringent conditions. This prompted an appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court observed that the lower court's bail conditions were disproportionately harsh compared to those set for co-accused individuals in the same case. The co-accused were granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 and two sureties, significantly lower than what was initially demanded of the petitioner. This disparity, the court noted, was in disregard of established guidelines for bail, which call for fairness and consistency.

Justice Diwakar emphasized the judicial duty to adhere to precedents set by higher courts, referring to the Supreme Court's directions for rationalizing bail conditions to avoid undue hardship on the accused. The judgment also pointed to previous directives issued in the case of Smt. Bachchi Devi v. State of U.P., underscoring the necessity for judicial discipline and the repercussions of non-compliance.

The court has sought explanations from the judges involved in the initial bail order, questioning their deviation from the prescribed guidelines. Additionally, it has mandated the Registrar General and District Judges to ensure strict adherence to the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court, cautioning against the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary due to repeated non-compliance.

The case will be revisited on December 18, 2025, with a compliance report expected from the District Judge, Bareilly. The High Court's decision underscores the imperative for judicial officers to maintain consistency and fairness, aligning with the constitutional mandate of ensuring justice for all.

Bottom Line:

Modification of bail conditions - Financial inability of the petitioner to comply with higher surety amounts set by the lower court - Judicial officers must adhere to guidelines issued by higher courts to ensure fairness and consistency in the justice delivery system.

Statutory provision(s):

• - Article 227 of the Constitution of India
• - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 331(4), 317(5), 305)

Pappu Met @ Pappu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821471