MP High Court Frees NEYU Activists, Calls Government-Employee Surety Condition 'Onerous'

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the release of two members of the National Educated Youth Union (NEYU), holding that a police-imposed condition requiring a government employee to stand surety for their bail was so onerous that it effectively amounted to a denial of bail.

A Division Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Alok Awasthi passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Ranjeet Jat.

The petition alleged that NEYU members Radheshyam Jat and Surendra Yadav were illegally detained ahead of a peaceful protest planned in Indore on July 23 in support of students demonstrating at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.

It said the activists had informed the police about the proposed procession but were detained instead of being granted permission.

The State defended the detention, arguing that the two men had been proceeded against under Section 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and could secure their release by complying with the conditions imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

It also cited their alleged involvement in violent protests in 2024 to justify the conditions.

The High Court, however, found one of the bail conditions to be unduly harsh. It noted that requiring a government servant to furnish surety was impractical, as few government employees would risk their jobs by standing surety for detainees.

The Bench held that the condition effectively deprived the petitioners of the benefit of bail.

Relying on Supreme Court rulings discouraging excessively stringent bail conditions, the court observed that such requirements should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.

Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the release of both detainees on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each with one solvent surety of the same amount.

It also directed them to comply with the conditions under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to appear before the trial court as required.