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 Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court 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

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