No Prohibition On Furnishing Same Surety In Different Bail Cases If Court Is Confident That Presence Of Accused Would Be Secured For Trial: Kerala HC

The petitioner who is an accused in as many as 1726 crimes before different police stations in different districts of Kerala has approached the Court since he was unable to produce different sureties for bail.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases would make the concept of bail illusionary.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the law does prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases if such surety was solvent and inspires the confidence of the Court since the purpose of sureties was only to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.

“Law does not prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases. If the surety furnished can inspire confidence of the court on his ability to ensure the presence of the accused during trial, there is nothing that restrains the court from accepting the same surety in all the different crimes. Even the value of the bond cannot be insisted to be commensurate with the quantum involved in a crime. The courts must bear in mind that insistence on sureties and execution of bail bonds cannot be another ordeal or a punishment for the accused.”

The petitioner is an accused in about 1726 crimes before different police stations in different districts of Kerala under the IPC and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Act. He has been in jail since October 2022 and has not been able to produce sureties for the satisfaction of the Court for bail.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there were a large number of cases, he was unable to obtain different sureties for different cases. It was also argued that courts were insisting on different sureties for each case. Further, it was also argued that some courts were also insisting on court fees from the petitioner on his applications contrary to the law that prisoners need not submit court fees.

The Court observed that bail cannot be denied by the conditions imposed or the bonds directed to be furnished. Analysing the provisions of CrPC, the Court stated that bail bonds were fixed based with regard to the circumstances of each case and shall not be excessive.

The Court stated that the purpose of sureties was to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial. Further, it stated that sureties do not guarantee the money due from the accused and they only guarantee the presence of the accused during trial. It thus stated that there was no restriction that a particular surety can only stand as a guarantee for a particular number of cases.

“The surety is not a person who can be called upon to guarantee the sum of money involved in the crime. The surety only guarantees the presence of the accused during trial and not for any money due from the accused. Sometimes a surety without any property can, by virtue of his respectability in society, be a better surety than one with immovable property. Therefore, it is not wholly prudent to correlate the quantum involved in the crime with the surety bond or fix a particular number of cases for a particular surety or to restrict a surety to stand as a guarantee only for a particular type of cases.”, the Court stated.

It observed that the insistence of courts for separate sureties for different crimes was not based on any legal provisions and was against the law.

It found that it was practically impossible for the petitioner against whom 1726 crimes were registered to produce 3400 separate sureties for obtaining bail.

The Court also held that as per Section 72 (xiii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, court fees cannot be insisted on petitions filed by prisoners. It stated thus:

“Apart from the above, insisting on court fees to be paid on petitions filed by accused who are in custody is also contrary to Section 72(xiii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. As per the said provision, a petition preferred by a prisoner is not eligible to any court fee.”

Accordingly, the Court stated that Courts dealing with bail applications filed by the petitioner shall not insist on separate sureties in all cases. It stated that if the surety was solvent and inspires the confidence of the courts, then Courts need not insist on separate sureties.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates C.S.Manu, Dilu Joseph, C.A.Anupaman, C.Y.Vijay Kumar, Manju E.R., Anandhu Satheesh, Alint Joseph, Paul Jose

Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor M C Ashi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

Case title: Venugopal v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment