SC reduces quantum of surety from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 25k, says unreasonable high amount of surety infringes right to life & personal liberty of accused protected by Article 21
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra [15-03-2024]

Read Order: ASHOK SANDEEP SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [SC- Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3314/2024]

 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, April 2, 2024: While reducing the amount of surety imposed upon a retired office clerk in a criminal matter, the Supreme Court has observed that the purpose of directing an accused, who has been released on bail, to furnish surety is to ensure that the accused is present to answer further proceedings including at the trial.

The petitioner, in this case, had been accused in a case registered under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts of the case suggested that a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the trial court including in regard to furnishing “heavy surety”. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10 lakh with two sureties in the like amount.

A subsequent application under Section 440(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reduction of the quantum of bail was dismissed as not being maintainable. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC for reduction of the amount of bail.

At the outset, the 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra opined, “The purpose of directing an accused who has been released on bail to furnish surety is to ensure that the accused is present to answer further proceedings including at the trial. Determining the amount of surety at an unreasonably high amount effectively defeats the very purpose of the grant of bail and infringes the right to life and personal liberty of the accused protected by Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Bench noted that the present case was a case in point. The petitioner was arrested on February 2,2023. Despite the order of the High Court, he continued to languish in jail for inability to furnish the surety in the amount of Rs 10 lakh.

“The petitioner is a retired office clerk. Since the order of the High Court directing the trial Judge to fix a “heavy surety” is not in appeal before this Court, we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of that direction. Be that as it may, the order of the High Court had to be construed reasonably by the trial Judge. The quantum of surety which has been fixed by the trial court effectively defeats the right to seek bail”, the Bench added.

The Apex Court was of the view that suitable directions by this Court are warranted. Having due regard to the nature of the controversy, the Bench directed that the quantum of surety which had been fixed by the trial Judge in the amount of Rs 10 lakh should stand reduced to Rs 25,000. Likewise, the personal bond to be filed by the petitioner was ordered to be in the amount of Rs 25,000.