Read Time: 07 minutes
Court said that it would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner were denied the benefit of a bail order due to his inability to provide a local surety
The Supreme Court, on September 18, 2024, said that the justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious to the plight of the indigent convicts who are unable to provide local surety as it ordered a man to be released on a personal bond without insisting on a local surety.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and S V N Bhatti noted that the appellant, Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari, had been in custody for seven years and one month, out of 10 years jail term, despite having been granted bail on May 3, 2024.
"It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to secure the benefit of 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 bench said.
Advocate Neha Rathi, appeared for the appellant, and Advovate Abhikalp Pratap Singh for the Maharashtra government.
The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had already been convicted, with a notice issued solely on the question of sentencing. This notice was in connection with the petitioner's challenge to the high court’s order, and was issued by the apex court on March 4, 2024.
Thereafter, on May 03, 2024, when it was pointed out that the petitioner had been in custody for nearly five years out of the sentence of ten years imposed upon him, bail was granted to the petitioner on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
His counsel submitted although, the bail order was passed as far back as on May 03, 2024, the petitioner continued to languish in the Kolhapur Central Prison.
"The reason for not getting the benefit of the bail order is because the accused/petitioner was unable to furnish local surety," the top court noted.
"The justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious of the plight of the indigent convicts who are unable to provide local surety. For their incapacity to meet the bail terms, the applicant continues to languish in jail notwithstanding the bail order passed in his favour as far back as on 03.05.2024," the bench said.
His counsel also referred to the custody certificate of November 09, 2023 of the senior jailer of the Kolhapur Central Prison to point out that as of date, the petitioner had been in actual custody for seven years and one month.
"Having considered the circumstances here, we deem it appropriate to say that the petitioner be released on bail on his personal bond without insisting on local surety, to ensure compliance with this Court’s bail order dated 03.05.2024. It is ordered accordingly," the bench said in its order.
The appellant challenged the correctness of the Bombay High Court's order of June 15, 2022, upholding his conviction under Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.
The defence of the appellant was that he had married the victim at the instance of his father and had established sexual relations with her as she was his wife. He stated that he was not aware of the age of the victim. The high court had upheld the trial court's order holding him guilty in the FIR filed on July 12, 2017.
Case Title: Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari Vs The State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
