Travesty of justice if lack of surety delays release after bail is granted: SC

It would be a “travesty of justice” if individuals granted bail continue to languish in jails simply because they are financially incapable of meeting certain conditions like securing a local surety, the Supreme Court has said. The court added 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 on Wednesday addressed the long-standing issue of indigent convicts unable to secure bail due to their inability to furnish local surety.
The bench, also comprising justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti, expressed 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 of 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,” said the court, underscoring that the justice system must be equitable and accessible, regardless of an individual’s socio-economic status.
The order came 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 purpose of granting bail.
In this judgment on August 22, the court acknowledged the difficulties individuals face in finding sureties, especially in criminal proceedings. It implored the courts to balance the requirement of sureties with the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court’s observation on Wednesday came as it ordered the release of a convict, who had been 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 court 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 in November 2023 confirmed the petitioner had spent over seven years behind bars, over half of his 10-year sentence.
The petition, filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva, said a trial court in Greater Mumbai in 2019 convicted the petitioner under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and sentenced him to 10 years in jail. The trial court acquitted the man of the charges of rape since he and the minor girl were married though the relationship was not legally valid. The Bombay high court upheld the punishment under the POCSO Act in June 2022 and the man approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
Rathi submitted that the Supreme Court on May 3 granted bail to the petitioner but he remained incarcerated because he was unable to furnish a local surety as required by the bail terms the trial court imposed.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the inability to afford a surety should not be a reason for prolonged detention, especially after a judicial order has 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.” .
The court emphasised that keeping the petitioner incarcerated merely because he could not furnish local surety would be inconsistent with the principles of justice. It ordered that the petitioner be released on bail on his personal bond without insisting on local surety to ensure that the bail order issued in May 2024 is effectively complied with.
Notably, in Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr (2022), the court held that “imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of release.” 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.