Insistence on high cash security as condition for bail would amount to discrimination and denial of bail itself, observed the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
"Insistence of heavy cash security or deposit would amount to discrimination and Court should consider prudently as to the conditions to be imposed", observed Justice Mohammad Nawaz.
The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 439(1)(b) CrPC for relaxation of condition imposed by the Sessions Court to furnish security for Rs.1,00,000/- while allowing a bail application. The High Court noted that the requirement of heavy cash-security or deposit effectively amounted to a denial of bail, and subsequently set aside that part of the Sessions court order.
In arriving at its decision, the court relied on Supreme Court precedent Keshab Narayan Banerjee v. State of Bihar to find that insistence on cash-security virtually amounted to denial of bail itself. It can also lead to discrimination, as a person may not be able to satisfy bail conditions due to poverty. The judge additionally referred to a Karnataka High Court case Kaleem Pasha vs State by Central Police Station, Bangalore to hold that a bail-order should not be illusory.