Criminal Courts Not Recovery Courts, Quantum Of Bond Can't Depend On Amount Involved In Criminal Cases: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court stated that the right to be enlarged on bail is an indefeasible part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied by imposing stringent or unreasonable conditions.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that excessive bond amounts cannot be imposed for denying bail since bail bonds only intend to secure the presence of the...
The Kerala High Court stated that the right to be enlarged on bail is an indefeasible part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be denied by imposing stringent or unreasonable conditions.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that excessive bond amounts cannot be imposed for denying bail since bail bonds only intend to secure the presence of the accused before the court. It stated that the amount fixed in bail bonds does not determine the sufficiency of surety and does not depend on the amount involved in criminal cases.
“Though the surety must be a sufficient surety, the quantum of the bond to be executed cannot be made to depend on the amount involved in criminal cases. Courts must of necessity, bear in mind that a criminal proceeding is not instituted to recover the money, if any, involved in a crime. Further, the lookout of the criminal court cannot be to act as a recovery court for the complainant or for the prosecution. When a bond is directed to be executed, it is only intended to act as a compulsion for ensuring the presence of the accused during trial”, stated the Court.
The petitioner was facing indictment for 78 cases and two crimes were registered against him for cheating various persons and was facing charges under Sections 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant), 409 Criminal breach of trust by public, servant. or by banker, merchant or agent) and 420 ( Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The petitioner who was arrested on May 2023 received statutory bail, however, he was not released yet due to failure to sufficient sureties. The Magistrate did not accept the surety furnished by the petitioner since the property's value was not commensurate with the bond required to be executed.
The Court stated that the right to be enlarged on statutory bail is a fundamental right under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and not just a statutory right. The Court relied upon the decisions in S. Kasi v. State through the Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station Madurai District (2021) and Vishnu Sajanan v. State of Kerala (2023).
Further, the Court stated that conditions of bail or amount of bail bond cannot become an unjust reason for denying bail. It said, “Insistence on the production of original title deeds of sureties and retaining them with the court, requiring the value of property to be commensurate with the amount involved in the crime, and imposing excessive bond amounts are some of such practices. A time has come to reiterate that these practices are indefensible and legally untenable.”
The court then stated the purpose of bail bonds executed by sureties. It stated that bail bonds were executed by sureties only as an undertaking for the production of the accused in court and not as a security for the amount fixed in the bail bond.
Relying upon the provisions of CrPC, the Court stated that the amount fixed as bail bonds shall not be excessive, but was only required to inspire the confidence of the Court that the amount fixed as bail bond was sufficient. It also stated that the law does not mandate conditions like the production of original title deeds, tax receipts or solvency certificates.
The Court stated unjust and unreasonable conditions imposed upon by the Magistrates could lead to wrongful incarceration of an accused. It added thus, “In some cases, like the present, Magistrates are not even satisfied with the sufficiency of surety if the value of the property of one of the two sureties is not equivalent to the total value of bond amounts, that too, fixed arbitrarily high.”
Further, it stated that as per Section 446 of the CrPC, if the surety fails to produce the accused then the surety would be liable to pay a penalty or the amount could be recovered as a fine from the surety. It stated if the penalty was not paid or the amount was not recovered as a fine, then the surety could also be imprisoned for up to 6 months.
In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the petitioner could not be denied his liberty by denying statutory bail despite offering sureties who were his immediate relatives and solvent. It thus stated that the sureties provided by the petitioner were sufficient for releasing him on bail.
The Court stated that if the Magistrate feels that the sureties produced were insufficient, the Court could seek additional sureties later under Section 443 of the CrPC. It said, “The court's attempt should always be in favour of ensuring an individual's liberty in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which must be read into every provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the Magistrate to issue fresh orders.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Latheesh Sebastian
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
Case title: Renjith Kumar V K v State Of Kerala
Case number: CRL.MC NO. 2589 OF 2024