Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

 

Similar News