The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that bail conditions must not operate as a de facto denial of liberty, particularly when the complainant’s own conduct undermines the integrity of the prosecution. In a significant ruling, the Court waived a Rs. 3 lakh deposit condition after finding that the complainant had failed to appear in court 42 times, rendering the condition arbitrary and unjust.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tarun Dhaketa, was arrested in February 2024 in connection with a criminal complaint filed by his father, who had publicly disowned him and his wife, excluding them from family property. The petitioner applied for bail, which was granted by the High Court on 12 August 2025, but subject to a condition that he deposit Rs. 3 lakhs in a nationalized bank.
Procedural History
- 05 February 2024: Petitioner arrested and lodged in jail
- 12 August 2025: High Court granted bail but imposed Rs. 3 lakh deposit condition
- Post-bail order: Petitioner remained in custody due to inability to deposit amount
- 42 court dates: Complainant failed to appear before the trial court
- 23 January 2026: Petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking modification of bail order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought waiver of the Rs. 3 lakh deposit condition, citing his prolonged incarceration despite bail being granted, his medical condition (severe piles), and the complainant’s repeated absence from proceedings. He also submitted evidence of his disownment by his father and the complainant’s deliberate non-cooperation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a bail condition requiring deposit of a substantial sum can be enforced when its imposition effectively denies liberty, particularly where the complainant’s conduct demonstrates bad faith or abandonment of the prosecution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to argue that bail is the rule and jail the exception. He emphasized that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. The petitioner’s prolonged detention despite a granted bail order, coupled with the complainant’s 42 non-appearances, constituted a clear abuse of process. Medical evidence and family disownment further supported the claim of hardship.
For the Respondent/State
The State and complainant’s counsel opposed the waiver, arguing that the deposit condition was imposed to ensure the petitioner’s appearance and was within the Court’s discretion. They contended that the complainant’s non-appearance was due to logistical difficulties, not malice, and that the condition should remain to preserve the sanctity of the bail order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the purpose of bail conditions under Section 482 CrPC, noting that such conditions must not transform bail into a punitive measure. It observed that the complainant’s repeated absence - 42 occasions - undermined the credibility of the prosecution and suggested a lack of genuine interest in pursuing the case. The Court held that imposing a financial condition that the petitioner cannot meet, while the complainant evades her procedural obligations, violates the principle of natural justice and the right to liberty under Article 21.
"The condition of depositing Rs. 3 lakhs, in the face of the complainant’s 42 non-appearances and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, operates as a denial of bail in substance, not merely in form. This cannot be countenanced under the law."
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s medical condition and social isolation, evidenced by public disownment, rendered the condition disproportionately harsh. The Court emphasized that bail conditions must be reasonable, proportionate, and capable of compliance. Where the complainant’s conduct renders the prosecution suspect, the Court must act to prevent injustice.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that bail conditions cannot be used to effectively deny liberty when the complainant’s conduct demonstrates bad faith or abandonment of the case. The Rs. 3 lakh deposit condition was waived, and the petitioner was directed to be released immediately under the earlier bail order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Conditions Must Be Practically Enforceable
- Practitioners must challenge bail conditions that are financially or logistically impossible for the accused to meet
- Courts must assess the accused’s means and circumstances before imposing monetary conditions
- A condition that renders bail illusory violates Article 21 and is void under Section 482 CrPC
Complainant’s Conduct Can Invalidate Bail Conditions
- Repeated non-appearance by the complainant may indicate lack of prosecutorial bona fides
- Courts may waive conditions or cancel bail if the complainant’s conduct suggests collusion, delay, or abuse of process
- Evidence of complainant’s non-cooperation should be formally recorded and raised in bail modification petitions
Judicial Discretion Must Serve Justice, Not Formalism
- The High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC is not limited to procedural correction but extends to substantive justice
- Judges must look beyond the text of bail orders to their real-world impact
- Where liberty is at stake, technical compliance must yield to equitable outcomes
