Travesty of justice if a jailed person is not freed due to local surety requirement: SC

New Delhi It would be a “travesty of justice” if individuals who have been granted bail continue to languish in jail simply because they are financially incapable of meeting certain conditions such as securing a local surety, the Supreme Court held on Wednesday, adding that such instances would trample upon the constitutional right to liberty.
In a significant decision reinforcing the right to liberty, a bench led by justice Hrishikesh Roy addressed the long-standing issue of indigent convicts being unable to avail themselves of bail due to their inability to furnish local surety.
The bench, also comprising justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti, expressed grave concern over the fact that the justice system, which is meant to safeguard liberty, could be hamstrung by a person’s inability to meet a technical condition — securing a local surety.
“The justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious of the plight of the indigent convicts who are unable to provide local surety,” emphasised the court, underscoring the idea that the justice system must be equitable and accessible, regardless of an individual’s socioeconomic status.
The order has come days after another Supreme Court bench led by justice Bhushan R Gavai underscored the need for courts to exercise caution while imposing bail conditions, noting that excessively onerous requirements could undermine the very purpose of granting bail. In its judgment on August 22, the court acknowledged the difficulties individuals face in finding sureties, especially in criminal proceedings, imploring the courts to balance the requirement of sureties with the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The court’s observation on Wednesday came as it ordered the release of a convict, who was in jail for over seven years despite being granted bail nearly four months earlier. The inability to furnish local surety left the petitioner imprisoned even though the top court had already granted him bail on May 3.
The petitioner’s counsel, Neha Rathi, highlighted the circumstance before the bench, pointing out that the petitioner continued to be denied his freedom because of his indigence. A custody certificate issued by the Kolhapur Central Prison on November 9, 2023 confirmed that the petitioner had spent over seven years behind bars, more than half of his ten-year sentence.
According to the petition, filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva, the petitioner was convicted of charges under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act by a trial court in Greater Mumbai in 2019, and sentenced to 10 years in jail. The trial court, however, acquitted the man of the charges of rape since he and the minor girl were married to each other, though the relationship was not legally valid. The punishment under the Pocso Act was upheld by the Bombay high court in June 2022, and the man approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
Rathi submitted that the top court had on May 3 granted bail to the petitioner, but despite this order he remained incarcerated in Kolhapur Central Prison because he was unable to furnish a local surety, as required by the bail terms imposed by the trial court concerned.
Taking a grim view of the situation, the bench pointed out that the inability to afford a surety should not be a reason for prolonged detention, especially after a judicial order has already granted bail.
“It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to secure the benefit of the bail order for his inability to furnish local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution for the person, who continues to be detained despite a bail order in his favour,” held the bench.
In its order, the court emphasised that keeping the petitioner incarcerated just because he could not furnish local surety would be inconsistent with the principles of justice.
Notably, in Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr (2022), the top court had held that “imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of release.” Again, in Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023), the Supreme Court endorsed the suggestion that courts should not insist on local sureties and should consider modifying or relaxing bail conditions if the bonds are not furnished within a month from the date of the bail order.