Husband convicted by lower court but finally supreme court reversed the judgement.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Appellant was convicted by the 

Trial Court under Sections 307,323 and 341 IPC - High Court suspended the 

sentence, but imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs. 

1,00,000/- along with a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/-

each - Waiving these conditions, the Supreme Court observed: Excessive 

conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted as a 

refusal to the grant of bail - Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with 

the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the 

Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted 

bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice 

itself.

Ld. Sr. Counsel Manish Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan

on the basis of instructions has also very fairly conceded to the point that the

conditions of bail are excessive and the appellant is in no financial condition to satisfy

the conditions. We deeply appreciate his role as an officer of the court for his unbiased

attitude in the matter.

19. We, therefore, allow this Appeal and set out to modify the bail order granted by

the High Court. The Bail order is to continue, however, the conditions set for the grant

of Bail stands waived off