'Constitution Of India Doesn't Put A Price Tag On Liberty': Allahabad HC Cautions Trial Courts Against Putting Onerous Surety Conditions In Bail Matters

The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned the Trial Court against putting onerous surety conditions in bail matters which have no connection with the socio-economic status of the prisoner as it noted that the same would negate the order granting bail, and undermine the fundamental right of liberty of the prisoner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Stressing that the Constitution of India does not put a price tag on liberty, the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot asserted that the purpose of sureties is dissuasive in intent, but unrealistic surety demands are punitive in effect.

Referring to various judicial authorities which reiterated that excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence, the Court noted that despite unequivocal holdings of various constitutional courts, the trial courts continue to adopt a rote response to a dynamic problem and approach the issue of fixation of sureties in a mechanical manner and neglect to make requisite inquiries.

In view of this, the Court went ahead, to sum up the duties of the trial courts as well as other agencies while fixing sureties as under:

(1) In case a prisoner cannot arrange the sureties fixed by the trial court the former can make an application to the learned trial court for a lesser surety. Material facts relating to the socioeconomic status and roots in the community of the prisoner shall be stated in the application.

(2) Similarly it is the bounden duty of the DLSA to examine the status of the prisoners who have been enlarged on bail but are not set at liberty within seven days of the bail order. In case the prisoners cannot arrange for sureties they may be advised and assisted to promptly move an application for refixation of the surety in light of this judgment.

(3) Once the prisoner makes such an application the trial court shall make an inquiry consistent with this judgment and pass a reasoned order depicting consideration of relevant criteria for fixing sureties with utmost expedition.

(4) Every trial court is under an obligation to satisfy itself about the socioeconomic conditions of the prisoner and probability of absconding and his roots in the community and fix sureties commensurate with the same. The State authorities or other credible agencies as the court may direct promptly provide the requisite details.

(5) In case the prisoner is from another State and is unable to produce local sureties, sureties from the prisoner's home district or any other place of his choice determined by the court of competent jurisdiction of the said district and the State shall be accepted by the trial court.

(6) The prisoner/counsel may state the details of the socioeconomic status of the prisoner in the bail application in the first instance. This will facilitate an expeditious consideration of the issue related to sureties.

Importantly, the Court also asked the Trial court to refer to the following talisman of Mahatma Gandhi whenever they are faced with the eternal dilemma of taking the right decision:

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

The Court made the abovesaid observations while dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea moved by one Arvind Singh, who was an employee of a company that was found to be running with fraudulent policies, however, he was granted bail in 6 cases connected to the offences committed by the company against different investors.

He moved the Court after the Trial Court had demanded multiple sureties while granting him bail in 6 cases. His counsel submitted before the Court that his fundamental right to liberty was being curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties for cases instituted against him.

Granting him relief, the High Court directed for his release by filing a single surety in the six criminal cases against him.

Importantly, before parting with the order, the Court also underscored the limitations of the judicial process as it noted that the Judgments of the courts are no substitute for legislative enactments on the issue of developing alternative deterrence against flight from justice apart from the exclusive concept of risk of monetary loss.

The Court also observed that Institutions engaged in the study and research of law like J.T.R.I. Lucknow also need to address various live issues which confront the courts by undertaking detailed research.

Further, stressing that the issue of fixing sureties is one which arises time and again, the Court pointed out some issues that need greater study as under:

(i) Empirical studies on correlation of socio-economic conditions of the prisoners and ability to produce sureties.

(ii) The cases in which the prisoners who were granted bail but could not be set free or set at liberty after delay on account of their inability to arrange for sureties.

(iii) Method and criteria for determination of socioeconomic conditions and social roots of the prisoner. Role of State authorities and other credible agencies to assist in determination of socioeconomic condition and social roots of the prisoner in an expeditious manner to avoid delays. Feasibility of drawing up a format in which the prisoner may provide the necessary details regarding the same while instituting the bail application.

(iv) Alternative methods including technological solutions which may ensure appearance of under trials or enable ascertainment of their locations or deter flight from justice without insisting on high surety demands.

(v) Comparative studies of different systems of bails prevalent in other States and countries and the efficacy of such systems.

(vi) Any other related issues.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Diwaker Singh, Nikhil Sonkar

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.

Case title - Arvind Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2613 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 112

Click Here To Read/Download Order