Deposit of compensation to legal heirs of victim of crime cannot be condition for grant of bail: Supreme Court [READ JUDGMENT]

The Supreme Court has held that deposit of compensation in favour of the legal heirs of a victim of a crime cannot be a condition for grant of bail to the accused (Dharmesh @ Dharmendra v. State of Gujarat). .A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta held that compensation as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a methodology for redemption and the same cannot be determined at the stage of grant of bail, but only after the trial concludes and the verdict is pronounced.“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 said..The Court, however, made it clear that it is not saying that no monetary compensation can be imposed at all 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 judgment said..It, therefore, set aside a condition mandated by the Gujarat High Court that the two accused-appellants have to deposit Rs. 2 lakh each towards the victims within a period of three months to be eligible for bail.The appellants, accused in a murder case, had applied for bail when the High Court by way of its judgment dated December 15, 2020 laid down deposit of compensation towards the victims as a condition for grant of bail..The counsel for the appellants contended before the Supreme Court the High Court imposed this condition for bail in view of the “amended provisions” relating to victim compensation in CrPC without referring to any specific provision.The counsel, therefore, took the Court through various provisions of CrPC including Section 357.As per section 357, it was pointed out that the essential requirements are: (a) imposition of fine or sentence; (b) the aforesaid would naturally be at the time of passing of the judgment; (c) orders the whole or any part of the fine be recovered..Also highlighted was sub-section (3) of Section 357 CrPC, which again begins with “when the court imposes a sentence” and where a “fine does not form a part”, an accused may be asked to pay compensation when passing the judgment.It was therefore, submitted that from a plain reading of Section 357, without a full-fledged trial there cannot be a sentence and, thus, there cannot be any such compensation..Reliance was also placed on Section 235 of CrPC to argue that a judge has to hear an accused on the question of sentence, which would also support the plea as per the scheme of the Act that the sentence must precede grant of compensation.One further aspect pointed out by the counsel for the appellant was that the inadequacy of compensation is appealable under Section 372 of the CrPC, which would naturally imply that a conclusion has been reached on imposition of sentence and/or fine..The Court agreed with the contentions of the appellants and proceeded to set aside the condition mandated by the High Court."Once we come to the aforesaid conclusion, the direction contained in the impugned order for deposit of compensation of Rs.2.00 lakh for the legal heirs of the deceased naturally cannot be sustained and has to be logically set aside," the Court said. It, however, confirmed the remaining conditions imposed by the High Court. The top court also added an additional condition that the appellants will not enter the geographical limits of Amreli for a period of six months, except for marking presence before the concerned police station and to attend the court proceedings..Advocates Tushar Gokani and Aastha Mehta appeared for the appellants. .[Read Judgment]