Table of Contents
Allahabad High court directs not to allow unjust bail conditions which prevent the release of poor persons from jail
Recently the Allahabad High Court has ordered the trial Courts that the orders which are passed for granting the bail should not be frustrated due to arbitrary surety conditions which are fixed inasmuch as not commenserate with the socio/eco status of the bail applicant of the case [Arman v. State of U. P. ].
The Court also observed that there could be situations where several persons belonging to the financially weak strata or socially and economically downtrodden would not be in a position to afford to meet the requirements of such bails.
In the same light, Justice Ajay Bhanot noted that the socio economic status of the accused is another factor that’s supposed to be considered by trial court while fixing the sureties then proceeded to apply his mind in the matter.
“This looks grave. There ha e been numerous of the persons who belong to marginalized sectors in the society and or financially challenged are unable to secure or provide sureties fixed in arbitrary manner by the learned trial courts, Hence in order to address this the constitutional Court have time without number’s stated that right of bail cannot be thwarted by arbitrary surety demands, But on the contrary, it is the endeavor of the learned trial court to reason to use
The Court then urged the trial Courts to fix the bail sureties in compliance with the directions on the case of Arvind Singh v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.
Even in the recent case of Arvind Singh v. State of UP, 17 the High Court had given various directions to check the oppressive practice of insisting on the stringent compliance of the bail conditions.
The Court was making the observations while rejecting the Centre’s objections to grant bail to a man, who was in jail since September, 2020 for allegedly promoting the Khalistan movement.
The man sought bail from the High Court after trial court dismissed his bail application by one of the several cases framed against him.
The High Court then released him on bond after pointing out that the accused man had come out clean on criminal records, had no reasons to flee and had complied with all the proceedings of the trial.
The High Court also opined that in spite of being released on bail by the trial court in other criminal cases which were filed against him, the accused man did not exercise the bale because he lacked sureties.
This made the Court to urge trial courts to fix sureties after the proper use of their brains and especially in lieu of the current economic status of the bail applicant.
According to the Court, the learned trial court shall guaranty that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not being frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties Or onerous condition which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.
It also ordered the Agra District Legal Services Authority ( DLSA) to make ensure that appropriate legal aid to the applicant to enable him to submit sureties and other formalities so that he can be released on bail.
The Court said that it had reminded in the Arvind Singh Case, that it had ordered the DLSA to support legal assistance of free and bailed prisoners as they cannot enjoy liberty which has been granted due to the bail orders because they fail to provide sureties that are fixed by trial courts.
The DLSA was also requested to assist such a prisoner in the filing of application to recall excessive surety demands.
Quoting legal guidelines for the award of Cost, the Court observed: “The District Legal Services Authorities as well as the learned trial courts have not complied with the aforesaid directions in facts of the case at hand.”
The Court also said that there were no legal aid to the applicant in this case as he could not go to the High Court for bail until 2024.
“As it is evident the applicant is financially ruined, and is a member of the socially vulnerable group of people… The applicant could not come to this Court at an earlier stage to seek his remedy or bail since he did not have an access to legal aid, nor was he advised legally to come to this Court earlier and more importantly, he did not have means to file the current bail application,” the Court said.
This went on to order the concerned District Judge at Agra to look into all matters raised by the Court as well as providing a report to the Secretary of the High Courts Legal Services Committee of the High Court.
A copy of the order was also sent to the Judicial Training and Research Institute at Lucknow was which had earlier been directed to educate the trial court judges on such issues.
For the bail applicant Advocate Brijesh Kumar Pal argued.
Amicus curiae was Advocate Ali Jamal Khan for the Court.
There was another Counsel for the Government Advocate namely Paritosh Kumar Malviya from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
