'Virtually Rendered Bail Order Ineffective ': Supreme Court Relieves Accused From Furnishing Local Surety

Today, the Supreme Court while holding that the accused need not furnish multiple sureties against multiple bail orders, emphasised that courts can do away with the condition of local surety if its insistence delays the release of the accused from jail and renders the bail order ineffective.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by one Girish Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking that the personal bonds and sureties executed by him in one case shall also hold good in other cases.

The petitioner secured bail in 13 cases but was in custody due to the inability to furnish personal bonds and sureties in some States.

The Supreme Court while relieving the petitioner from the direction to provide a local surety, noted that the bail order pertained to Jaipur, Rajasthan whereas he hailed from Haryana which made it an 'arduous task' to comply and therefore, this condition 'virtually rendered ineffective the order for bail'.

The court specifically highlighted that excessive and onerous bail conditions are to " take away with the left hand, what is given with the right". It referred to Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022), wherein the court held that “imposing a [bail] condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of release."

In this regard, the court referred to the order passed by the Supreme Court in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023), wherein the court endorsed certain directions sought by the counsel, including that: "7) One of the reasons which delay the release of the accused/convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety."

Considering this, it proposed to relieve the petitioner from the condition of local surety.

The court concluded in this regard by recalling the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Moti Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978), where he had said: "33. To add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district! (we assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies.

What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language applications? What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff.”