NEET Protest Detention | Demanding Government Servant As Surety Condition Is Denial Of Bail: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a bail condition requiring a detenu to have a government servant furnish surety, on top of a personal bond and a private surety, effectively amounts to a denial of bail, since few government employees would risk their jobs to stand surety for someone else.

A division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Ranjeet Jat, alias Ranjeet Kisanwanshi, a member of the National Educated Youth Union, seeking the release of two of its members, Radheshyam Jat and Surendra Yadav, who had been detained by the police ahead of a planned protest.

According to the petition, the two men wanted to organise a peaceful procession in solidarity with students protesting at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. A representation seeking permission for the march was sent to the police station concerned, but instead of being granted permission, the two were detained by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Zone 4. The petitioner had also sought compensation of Rs 5 lakh for the detenus, along with a departmental inquiry against the officers involved.

When the matter came up before the court, the state was directed to file its reply. The state told the court that the men had been detained under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (Section 151 of CrPC), and that an order for their release had already been passed, subject to certain conditions under Section 130 of the BNSS (Section 111 of CrPC). It argued that no interference was warranted, since the petitioner had the alternative remedy of challenging that order.

Counsel for the petitioner, Jayesh Gurnani, argued before the court that the conditions imposed by the police were impossible to fulfil. Besides a personal bond and surety, the order required a government servant to also furnish bail for the detenus, failing which they would be sent to jail. Shri Pradyumna Kibe, appearing for the state, countered that the conditions had been imposed keeping in mind the past conduct of the detenus, who, the state said, had tried to disturb the peace during a violent protest in 2024.

Examining the police order, the court noted that it required a "government servant" to furnish bail along with the personal bond and surety, failing which the detenus would be sent to jail. The court observed that "any government servant concerned about his/her job would be unlikely to provide bail bonds for the detenus," and held that such a condition "amounts to a denial of bail."

The bench relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Yashik Jindal vs Union of India, where onerous bail conditions, including a direction to deposit Rs 2 crore, had similarly been set aside, with the court noting that such conditions had been "deprecated" in earlier orders as well, including in an appeal decided in January 2023. The bench reiterated that the grant of bail subject to onerous conditions is meant for exceptional circumstances and cannot be imposed as a matter of course, and is not something a court should order routinely as a matter of policy, regardless of how serious the underlying allegations against the accused happen to be.

Though the petition before it was framed as one seeking habeas corpus, the court noted that since the detenus were already in detention and had been saddled with an onerous condition, it would be inclined to grant relief directly rather than send the petitioner back to pursue an alternative remedy.

The court accordingly allowed the petition and directed that the detenus be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each, along with one solvent surety of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the trial court or the concerned authority. The detenus were directed to remain present before the concerned court during trial and to comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Case Title: Ranjeet Jat @ Ranjeet Kisanwanshi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi