Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said determining the amount of surety at an unreasonably high amount effectively defeats the very purpose of the grant of bail and infringes the right to life and personal liberty of the accused protected by Article 21 of the Constitution. 

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has with this view modified the Allahabad High Court and trial court's orders and reduced the quantum of surety from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 25,000 for the purpose of bail to a man accused in a cheating and forgery case.

"The quantum of surety which has been fixed by the trial court effectively defeats the right to seek bail," the bench said.

Appellant Ashok Sandeep Singh was accused in an FIR lodged in police station Naini in Prayagraj district under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

By an order of October 18, 2023, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, including in regard to furnishing “heavy surety”. 

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Prayagraj had accordingly directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10 lakhs with two sureties in the like amount.  A subsequent application under Section 440(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for reduction of the quantum of bail was also dismissed as not being maintainable. 

High Court also dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC for reduction of the amount of bail.

The bench, however, said, "The purpose of directing an accused who has been released on bail to furnish surety is to ensure that the accused is present to answer further proceedings including at the trial. Determining the amount of surety at an unreasonably high amount effectively defeats the very purpose of the grant of bail and infringes the right to life and personal liberty of the accused protected by Article 21 of the Constitution."

Noting that the accused petitioner was a retired office clerk, top court said, "Since the order of the High Court directing the trial Judge to fix a “heavy surety” is not in appeal before this Court, we are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of that direction. Be that as it may, the order of the High Court had to be construed reasonably by the trial judge".

The bench felt that suitable directions by this court are warranted and altered the orders by the High Court and the trial court. The court did not find it necessary to issue notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, having due regard to the nature of the controversy.

Case Title: Ashok Sandeep Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh