Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Ranjeet Jat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No. 29660 of 2026, 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 297), reaffirmed that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot be framed in a manner that effectively denies an individual’s liberty. A Division Bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi allowed a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of two members of the National Educated Youth Union who had been preventively detained while attempting to organise a peaceful protest in support of students demonstrating against the alleged NEET paper leak at Jantar Mantar.
The petition arose after the detenues approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police seeking permission to organise a procession expressing solidarity with the protesting students. Instead of granting permission, the police detained them under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers the police to make preventive arrests in specified circumstances. Although the police subsequently ordered their release on bail, the order required each detenue to furnish a bail bond through a government servant, a condition which the petitioners contended was practically impossible to satisfy.
Aggrieved by their continued detention, the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court through a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the onerous bail condition had rendered the order of release illusory. The case required the High Court to examine whether preventive detention could be continued by imposing unrealistic conditions that effectively deprived the detenues of their liberty.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners submitted that the two members of the National Educated Youth Union intended to organise only a peaceful procession in support of students protesting against the alleged NEET paper leak. They argued that they had duly informed the Assistant Commissioner of Police by making a representation seeking permission for the proposed demonstration. However, instead of permitting the peaceful protest, the police detained them under Section 170 of the BNSS.
The petitioners further contended that although the police had formally granted bail, the condition requiring a government servant to furnish the bail bond was impossible to fulfil. According to them, no government employee would ordinarily be willing to stand as a surety because of the potential consequences for their service. Consequently, the condition effectively nullified the order granting bail and resulted in continued illegal detention. They argued that such a condition violated their fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The State defended the preventive detention by submitting that the detenues had been arrested in exercise of powers under Section 170 of the BNSS to prevent breach of public peace. It was argued that the bail conditions had been imposed keeping in view the detenues’ previous conduct during protests held in 2024, where they had allegedly attempted to disturb public order through violent demonstrations. According to the State, the conditions were intended to ensure maintenance of law and order and were therefore justified in the facts of the case.
Court’s Judgment:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and held that the bail condition requiring a government servant to furnish the bond was unreasonable and practically impossible to satisfy. The Court observed that although the Assistant Commissioner of Police had technically directed the release of the detenues on bail, the condition imposed rendered the order meaningless because it was highly unlikely that any government servant would agree to stand as a surety.
The Bench observed that a government employee, concerned about the implications for his or her employment, would ordinarily be reluctant to execute such a bond. As a result, the condition operated as an indirect denial of bail, defeating the very purpose of the release order. The Court held that liberty cannot be curtailed by imposing conditions that are impossible or excessively burdensome to comply with.
Emphasising the constitutional importance of personal liberty, the Court reiterated that onerous bail conditions should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. In support of this principle, the Bench relied upon the decision in Yashik Jindal v. Union of India (2023), which recognised that bail conditions must remain fair, proportionate, and capable of compliance.
The Court acknowledged that preventive detention under Section 170 of the BNSS may be exercised in appropriate cases to maintain public order. However, once the competent authority decides to release a person on bail, the accompanying conditions cannot be framed in a manner that effectively frustrates that decision. Such an approach would amount to continued detention without lawful justification and would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
Accordingly, the Division Bench modified the conditions imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and directed that both detenues be released upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each along with one solvent surety each. The Court held that these conditions adequately balanced the interests of the investigation and public order while ensuring that the detenues’ right to liberty was not rendered illusory.
The judgment reinforces the settled principle that the grant of bail must be meaningful and effective. Authorities cannot impose impracticable conditions that make compliance virtually impossible, thereby converting an order of release into continued detention. The decision also reiterates that preventive powers under the BNSS must be exercised consistently with constitutional safeguards, ensuring that restrictions on liberty remain reasonable, proportionate, and legally sustainable.