NEW DELHI: Observing that courts should refrain from imposing bail conditions which are difficult to fulfill, Supreme Court on Thursday said “excessive bail is no bail”.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said, “To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right.As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The court was hearing the plea of an accused against whom multiple FIRs were lodged and he was unable to come out of jail despite getting bail as he was unable to furnish sureties in different states. The court agreed with his submission and granted him relief and said that bail order should be such that it would protect the person’s fundamental right under Art 21, and, guarantee his presence during inquiry and trial.
In the present case, the petitioner is experiencing a difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said.
The accused, in this case, was facing prosecution on the basis of 13 FIRs in UP, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand. In spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties.
“Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for a person is very limited. It will very often be a close relative or a long-time friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose about the said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one’s reputation. These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law,” the bench said and allowed his plea to relieve him from the direction to produce a local surety.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said, “To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right.As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The court was hearing the plea of an accused against whom multiple FIRs were lodged and he was unable to come out of jail despite getting bail as he was unable to furnish sureties in different states. The court agreed with his submission and granted him relief and said that bail order should be such that it would protect the person’s fundamental right under Art 21, and, guarantee his presence during inquiry and trial.
In the present case, the petitioner is experiencing a difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said.
The accused, in this case, was facing prosecution on the basis of 13 FIRs in UP, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttarakhand. In spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties.
“Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for a person is very limited. It will very often be a close relative or a long-time friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose about the said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one’s reputation. These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law,” the bench said and allowed his plea to relieve him from the direction to produce a local surety.