Calcutta High Court rules bail conditions can’t be punitive, grants relief to accused
Times of India | 1 September 2026
Kolkata: The object of a bail condition cannot be punitive in nature, Calcutta High Court held on Monday, granting relief to an accused whose bail condition was to not enter the complainant’s property, of which he owned a 50% share.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: “...conditions imposed in the bail order clearly amounts to effective ouster of the petitioner from his residence where he has half share. It has not been stated in the impugned order, beside expressing apprehension of complexities, why such ouster of the petitioner from his residence was the only alternative for the court below to secure the bail order.” The bail condition was set aside.
The lower court on Feb 5, 2026, rejected accused Debabrata Ghosh’s prayer seeking cancellation of the conditions imposed in the bail order of Aug 5, 2024, which states ‘that the accused persons shall not enter into the house of the complainant until further order.’
On Jan 2, 2026, the Calcutta HC had given liberty to the accused to make an appropriate prayer before the court below for modification of the condition imposed in the bail order. The trial court was further directed to dispose of such application within three weeks.
It was again mentioned, but the trial court rejected it on the ground that “the court cannot decide the right title interest in the property of the petitioner/accused or de facto complainant/opposite party as claimed by them.”
The accused’s counsel submitted that he and the complainant are joint owners of the house; therefore, the accused cannot be restrained from entering into his house by imposing a condition in the bail order.
It was further submitted that there was no dispute about his extent of such share in the house property. There are no civil disputes pending between the parties and therefore the trial court completely erred in observing that he was not supposed to decide the right, title, interest of the accused in the house property, the counsel submitted.
“It is settled law that the object of imposing conditions in the bail order must satisfy the test of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity… It needs no reiteration that imposing conditions in the bail order must not be such that in practice it would amount to denial of bail nor object of imposing such conditions would be punitive in nature,” the single judge held.