Supreme Court sets aside onerous condition imposed by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma while granting anticipatory bail

In Vinay Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. K Singh passed a 4-page long order dated March 25, 2026, wherein it concluded: "5. The appeal lies in a narrow compass. While granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, a condition has been imposed by the High Court vide the impugned order to the effect that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to the informant. Alleging the said condition to be onerous as the High Court has not considered it in the proper prospective, the present appeal is filed. 6. We find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. When the condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail is onerous, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law, especially, when we are dealing with a case pertaining to the liberty of a person. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned condition with respect to the payment of a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- stands set aside and the appeal is allowed, accordingly." The Court allowed the appeal after condoning the delay in case from Siwan pertaining to offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860..

In his 5-page long order dated Jnaury 23, 2025, Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma had concluded:"6. Considering the aforesaid facts and petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No.03 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS,2023 and with other following conditions:-(I) At the time of furnishing bail bond, the petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,50,000/-(Rs.One Lac Fifty Thousand) by way of demand draft in favour of the informant and the learned Trial Court is directed to hand over the said demand  draft to the informant or his representative and petitioner shall pay rest amount of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs. One Lac Ten Thousand) to the informant in the month of February, 2025. If the petitioner fails to pay the rest amount within the aforesaid period, the informant shall be at liberty to move before the learned court below for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. (II) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (III) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (IV) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his/her criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification." 

Now Supreme Court has set aside the onerous condition imposed by Justice Verma.