Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Determining the Amount of Surety at an Unreasonably High Amount Defeats the Very Purpose of Grant of Bail – Supreme Court on Excessive Bail Amount

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has intervened to reduce an excessively high bail amount, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that bail conditions are reasonable and do not infringe on the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The petitioner, a retired office clerk, challenged the bail amount set at Rs 10 lakhs, which was beyond his financial capability.

The petitioner, accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including fraud and criminal conspiracy, was unable to secure release due to the high surety amount set by the High Court and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. Following his inability to furnish the surety, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, citing an infringement of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

Purpose of Bail and Surety: The Court noted that the fundamental objective of bail is to ensure the accused’s presence during the trial. Setting an exorbitant bail amount contradicts this purpose and infringes upon personal liberty.

Impact of High Bail Amount: The Court observed that the petitioner, a retired office clerk, continued to be incarcerated despite the High Court’s order for release on bail, solely due to his inability to meet the high financial demand of the surety.

Interpretation of High Court’s Order: The Supreme Court remarked that the High Court’s directive for a “heavy surety” should have been reasonably interpreted by the trial judge, considering the petitioner’s economic status.

Decision: The Supreme Court ordered the reduction of the surety and personal bond from Rs 10 lakhs to Rs 25,000. This decision underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring fair and reasonable interpretation of bail conditions, in line with the principles of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution.

 Date of Decision: 15th March 2024

Ashok Sandeep Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Latest Legal News