Report No. 36
16. Recommendation regarding section 497.-
So far as the first point1 is concerned, the suggestion is a useful one. The existing position as to the power to impose conditions while granting bail is somewhat uncertain, though the power to impose conditions is recognised by most High Courts2-3 The proposed change will settle the law. It is, however, necessary that the conditions to be imposed must be such as are linked up with preventing the escape, of the accused or preventing repetition of the offence or otherwise required in the interests of justice. Moreover, a condition tantamount to refusal of bail4 ought not to be authorised.
1. Para. 8(i), supra.
2. Paras. 9-14, supra.
3. In England, a condition for medical examination can be imposed where an inquiry into physical or mental condition of the accused is necessary. See section 26(4), Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. 6 and I Eliz. 2, C. 55).
4. See para. 10, supra.
17. So far as the second point-tampering with evidence1-is concerned, it does not appear to be necessary to mention tampering with evidence specifically as a ground for prohibiting bail. Release (in the case of a non-bailable offence) is in the discretion of the court. The Court can, therefore, even now take into account the possibility of tampering with evidence.2-5
The observations in a Supreme Court case also make this clear.6
It would not be necessary to over-emphasise this consideration, in granting or refusing bail.
Subject to these modifications, there is no harm in accepting the suggestion.
1. Para. 8(ii), supra.
2. Public Prosecutor v. Sanyasayya, AIR 1925 Mad 1224 (1225) (Courts Trotte D.C.J.).
3. Harnarain, AIR 1958 Punj 123 (127).
4. K.E. v. Nga San-Htwa, AIR 1927 Rang 205 (208) (FB), Appealing, AIR 1926 Rang 51.
5. Vidya Sagar, AIR 1962 Punj 487 (488), para. 5.
6. State v. Jagjit Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 622: AIR 1962 SC 253 (255), paras. 3 and 5, where some of the considerations in granting or refusing bail are outlined.