On Thursday(22nd August),The Supreme Court of India ruled that excessive bail conditions are equivalent to denying bail, undermining the relief granted. This decision underscores the need for reasonable and proportionate bail conditions in line with constitutional rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday(22nd August), declared that excessive bail conditions are equivalent to denying bail altogether. The apex court emphasized that imposing onerous conditions after granting bail undermines the very purpose of the relief, essentially taking away “with the left hand, what is given with the right.” This ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that bail conditions are reasonable, proportionate, and in line with the constitutional protection of fundamental rights under Article 21.
Background of the Case
The case before the Supreme Court involved a petitioner against whom 13 First Information Reports (FIRs) had been lodged across several states, including allegations of cheating. Despite being granted bail in all 13 cases, the petitioner faced significant challenges in meeting the bail conditions. Specifically, he struggled to furnish separate sureties as required by the courts in 11 of these cases, despite having fulfilled the conditions in two.
“Despite being granted bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has been unable to provide the required sureties.”
– noted the bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan.
The Supreme Court underscored a longstanding legal principle that “excessive bail is no bail.” The bench elaborated that granting bail only to follow it up with excessive and onerous conditions effectively nullifies the relief granted. The court further stressed that determining what constitutes “excessive” bail depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
“Historically, the principle has been that excessive bail is effectively no bail. Granting bail only to impose excessive and onerous conditions is akin to taking away with the left hand what was given with the right.”
-the court remarked.
In this particular case, the petitioner expressed a “genuine difficulty” in securing multiple sureties, a challenge that the court acknowledged. The bench observed that sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused after being released on bail, but the difficulty in finding sureties across multiple cases raised significant concerns.
The Supreme Court highlighted the need to strike a balance between the legal requirement of furnishing sureties and the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench noted that while sureties play a critical role in criminal proceedings, the realities of life in India make it difficult for many individuals to secure sureties, especially in multiple cases.
“Simultaneously, when an accused granted bail struggles to provide the required sureties in multiple cases, it is essential to balance the surety requirements with their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
– the bench observed.
The court further delved into the practical challenges of securing sureties, especially in criminal proceedings. It pointed out that finding individuals willing to act as sureties is often limited to close relatives or long-time friends. The court also noted that many people are reluctant to disclose criminal proceedings to their acquaintances to protect their reputation, making it even more challenging to secure sureties.
“These are harsh realities in our country, and as a court of law, we cannot ignore them. However, a solution must be found strictly within the bounds of the law.”
-the bench stated.
Considering the specific challenges faced by the petitioner, the Supreme Court issued a directive to simplify the bail conditions. In one instance, the court noted that an FIR registered in Rajasthan required the petitioner to provide a local surety, a condition that posed significant difficulties for someone hailing from Haryana.
“Considering the principles discussed, we direct that for the FIRs pending in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, the petitioner must provide a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and two sureties, each executing a bond for Rs 30,000. This arrangement will cover all FIRs in the respective states.”
-the bench ordered.
The court further allowed the “same set of sureties to stand as surety in all the states,” providing significant relief to the petitioner and ensuring that the bail conditions are fair and manageable.
