LI Network
Published on: December 24, 2023 at 13:50 IST
The Kerala High Court held that a court cannot mandate that a surety for bail must hail from a specific geographical area.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, presiding over the bench, modified an order from the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases that required one of the sureties for bail to be from the district where the alleged crime was registered. The accused, originally from West Bengal, challenged this condition.
The Court, in its observation, invoked the spirit of unity encapsulated in the National Pledge, stating, “India is a country consisting of several States with different languages. But, from our childhood, it is a pledge we have all taken to the effect that we are all brothers and sisters. There is no Keralite alone or Bengali alone or Kannadiga alone or Tamilian alone. All are brothers and sisters.” Consequently, the court asserted that a surety may belong to any state within India.
The Court highlighted the practical difficulties faced by an accused if the surety condition were restricted to the local jurisdiction of the court. For instance, if a Keralite were accused in West Bengal, securing a surety in West Bengal would be challenging.
The same difficulty would be faced by a person from West Bengal accused of an offense in Kerala. Emphasizing the shared citizenship of all Indians, the court concluded that it cannot be insisted that sureties must reside within the court’s jurisdiction.
The Court acknowledged the Trial Court’s concern about issuing notices to out-of-state sureties in case of the accused absconding but proposed a solution. It suggested obtaining detailed information, including the address, phone number, and local police station of the surety.
The Court, therefore, deemed the insistence on producing a surety from the same district as the petitioner, who belonged to West Bengal, as unjustified and modified the bail condition accordingly.
The case is titled “Abedur Shekh v. State of Kerala.”