"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News