Novel conditions imposed by lower court judges in recent times while granting bail have triggered a debate about their judicial propriety.
As a case in point, two judges in Ariyalur and Tiruchengode had last week directed the accused, in separate cases, to uproot seemai karuvelam (Prosposis juliflora) trees as a condition for securing bail.
Incidentally, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had recently directed the State government to remove seemai karuvelam — an invasive species — all across the State, in an order welcomed by environmentalists.
Precedents aplenty
Likewise, a magistrate in Mettupalayam ordered an accused in a poaching case to fill water in troughs created for the Forest department in the Mettupalayam Forest range for a month as a bail condition.
There have been quite a few precedents for imposing such novel bail conditions.
Nonetheless, questions are being raised as to whether the law provides for such a course of action.
While acknowledging the good intention of the judges concerned, well-known advocate and national general secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) V. Suresh questions the legality and practicality of such an order.
Though there have been instances in the past when judges have directed the accused to teach students in orphanages or social welfare centres, the condition of uprooting seemai karuvelam trees cannot be equated with them, he contends.
“The cutting down of trees demands hard work and you are asking the accused to cut down these trees, which I think cannot be done single-handedly. You need a team for that. It would be very hard to cut down 100 trees in 20 days (a condition imposed by the judge in Ariyalur),” Mr. Suresh says.
Retired Madras High Court judge D. Hariparanthaman opines that such orders are not legally correct.
“It is wrong and not in the law to punish someone while granting bail. The judge can only grant, or refuse to grant, a bail, depending on the gravity of the case,” he says.
