The Supreme Court has declared it a “travesty of justice” if individuals granted bail remain incarcerated solely because they cannot afford to meet conditions like securing a local surety. Such situations violate their constitutional right to liberty.
In a crucial ruling emphasizing the right to liberty, a bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy addressed the longstanding issue of indigent convicts unable to secure bail due to financial constraints. Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti also expressed concern that the justice system could hinder liberty based on a person’s inability to fulfill a technical requirement.
“The justice delivery mechanism must recognize the plight of indigent convicts who cannot provide local surety,” the court stated, stressing that the system should be equitable and accessible, irrespective of socio-economic status.
This ruling followed another recent decision by a different Supreme Court bench, which highlighted the importance of courts exercising caution when imposing bail conditions. It noted that excessively burdensome requirements could undermine the purpose of bail. On August 22, the court acknowledged the challenges faced by individuals in finding sureties, urging courts to balance surety requirements with the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court’s remarks were made while ordering the release of a convict who had been in jail for over seven years, despite being granted bail nearly four months prior. The petitioner was unable to secure a local surety, leaving him imprisoned even after the court’s bail order on May 3.
Counsel Neha Rathi highlighted this injustice, pointing out that the petitioner was being denied freedom due to his financial situation. A custody certificate confirmed he had served more than half of his 10-year sentence. The petitioner had been convicted under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) in 2019, although the trial court acquitted him of rape charges, given that he had married the minor girl, despite the marriage’s legal invalidity. The Bombay High Court upheld the POCSO conviction in June 2022, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Rathi noted that while the Supreme Court granted bail on May 3, the petitioner remained in jail due to his inability to secure the required local surety. The Supreme Court emphasized that financial inability should not lead to prolonged detention after a bail order has been issued.
“It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to benefit from the bail order due to the lack of a local surety,” the court stated, affirming that such a situation infringes on rights protected by Article 21. The court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail based on his personal bond, without the need for local surety, ensuring compliance with the May bail order.
In a previous ruling, *Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022)*, the court stated that imposing impossible conditions would defeat the purpose of release. In *Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023)*, the Supreme Court supported the idea that courts should avoid insisting on local sureties and consider modifying bail conditions if bonds are not provided within a month of the bail order.
