Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Imposing Separate Sureties for Each 1726 Cases Renders Liberty Illusory: Kerala High Court on Bail Conditions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the principles of reasonable bail conditions, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Crl.M.C.No.10916 of 2023. The Court addressed the hardships faced by an accused, Venugopal, who is involved in a staggering 1726 crimes, primarily under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Act, 2019.

Highlighting the essence of the judgment, Justice Thomas observed, "Insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases can render the said condition incapable of performance, and the liberty of the petitioner may remain a mirage." This observation came in the context of Venugopal's inability to produce different sureties for each of the cases registered against him, a requirement that had made his bail practically unattainable.

The Court delved into the legalities of bail bonds under Sections 440, 441, and 443 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the purpose of sureties is merely to ensure the accused's presence during the trial. Justice Thomas remarked, "The surety only guarantees the presence of the accused during trial and not for any money due from the accused." This statement reiterates the Court's stance that linking the quantum involved in the crime with the surety bond is legally untenable.

Furthermore, the judgment brought relief to prisoners in terms of court fees for their petitions. Referring to Section 72(xiii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the Court clarified that petitions filed by prisoners are exempt from court fees, a significant relief for incarcerated individuals seeking legal recourse.

In a decisive conclusion, the Court directed that the courts dealing with Venugopal's bail applications in the numerous crimes against him should not insist on separate sureties for each case. As long as the surety is solvent and inspires the confidence of the courts, it suffices for multiple cases.

Date of Decision: 16th January 2024

VENUGOPAL VS STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News