Rahamathullah vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, Rahamathullah, arrayed as accused in Crime No. 223 of 2022, facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, sought modification of a condition imposed by the High Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8765 of 2022. The original condition, granted with his bail, required him to publish a public apology in The Times of India and Daily Thanthi, not less than a quarter page, and upload it on social media. The petitioner argued that this condition was onerous, as the combined cost, including GST, exceeded Rs. 1 lakh, which he, as a street hawker selling Biryani, could not afford. The respondent State did not contest this, acknowledging his poor financial situation.

Held

The Court held that while the condition of publishing a public apology was imposed considering the gravity of the offence and to alleviate the situation created by the petitioner, his poor financial condition, which was not brought to the Court's notice earlier, warranted modification. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission regarding his inability to comply due to financial constraints, supported by the respondent's confirmation of his status as a street vendor. Consequently, the Court modified the condition imposed on the petitioner, allowing him to comply with other bail conditions. The Court's reasoning was that the original condition, though intended to serve a purpose, became practically impossible for the petitioner to fulfill due to his financial circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that bail conditions must be practical and achievable, and if found to be onerous and impossible to comply with due to the accused's financial status, they can be modified. The operative direction was to modify the condition of newspaper publication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8765 of 2022, requiring the petitioner to publish a public apology in specified newspapers, is legally sustainable given the petitioner's financial inability to comply. The petitioner argued that the condition for publishing a public apology in two newspapers, with the total cost exceeding Rs. 1 lakh including GST, was financially onerous and impossible for him to fulfill as he is a street hawker. He relied on the quotations received from the newspapers, which included GST amounts of 15% for Daily Thanthi and 5% for Times of India, to demonstrate the prohibitive cost. The respondent State did not present any arguments against the modification sought by the petitioner.