Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: January 16, 2022 at 16:07 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in its landmark Judgement made it certain that neither the Court nor the Arresting Officer should provide the Accused with the choice of payment for his/her Bail.
Justice Anoop Chitkara stated that, “The option lies with the Accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or Arresting Officer.”
The Accused has the choice of payment by either equipping surety bonds, transferring a fixed deposit, direct transfer of electronic money or providing a lien over his/her bank account.
This Verdict was observed when an Accused resident of West Bengal requesting for the suspension of his sentence of 10 years imprisonment along with Rs. 1 lakh fine for possessing heroin.
The Amicus Curiae of the Court Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta informed the Court that denying the suspension of sentence just because the Accused was the native of a distant state violates the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which is applicable to all the people residing anywhere in India even to the foreigner.
The Amicus Curiae added that the Court or the Arresting Officer should provide the Accused the choice to do the payment for his/her Bail.
The Court observed that records of sureties in making certain the Accused is brought to Justice is absent. The Court also noted that making the possibility of Fixed deposit or electronic transfer instead of cash or sureties will probably compel the Accused to be present.