The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered the release of two men who were detained before a planned peaceful protest, holding that a condition requiring a government servant to stand as surety for their bail was excessively burdensome and effectively denied them the benefit of bail. The Division Bench observed that such a condition was unlikely to be fulfilled and therefore could not be sustained.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Ranjeet Jat, a member of the National Educated Youth Union (NEYU), through a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that fellow union members Radheshyam Jat and Surendra Yadav had been detained by the police ahead of a proposed peaceful procession in Indore scheduled for July 23, 2026.
According to the petition, the procession was intended to express solidarity with students protesting at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. Instead of granting permission for the event, the police detained the two individuals. The petitioner also sought compensation and departmental action against the officials, alleging illegal detention.
State's Stand
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the detenues had been proceeded against under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and that an order for their release had already been passed, subject to compliance with certain bail conditions. It also submitted that the conditions were imposed considering the detenues' previous conduct during protests in 2024.
The petitioner's counsel, however, argued that the release condition requiring a government servant to furnish surety made compliance practically impossible, resulting in continued detention.
Court's Observations
After examining the record, the High Court found that while the order permitted the detenues to be released on bail, the requirement that a government servant furnish the surety was unrealistic.
The Bench observed,
"The requirement... for a government servant to furnish the bond is one that the detenue will likely be unable to meet... such condition imposed upon the detenues amounts to a denial of bail."
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Yashik Jindal v. Union of India, where onerous bail conditions had been disapproved. It noted that restrictive bail conditions should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.
Court's Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the Division Bench directed that the two detenues be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one solvent surety of the same amount.
The Court further directed that they must appear before the concerned court or authority as required and comply with the conditions applicable under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Ranjeet Jat @ Ranjeet Kisanwanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29660 of 2026
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Hon'ble Justice Alok Awasthi
Decision Date: 24 July 2026
