Travesty Of Justice If Prisoner Can't Get Benefit Of Bail Order Due To Inability To Furnish Local Surety: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (September 18) directed the release of a POCSO convict who continued to remain in custody despite a bail order passed in May 2024. The petitioner had been unable to secure release due to his inability to furnish local surety.A bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti noted that continuing to keep him in custody despite a bail order would violate his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.“It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to secure the benefit of bail order for his inability to furnish local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution for the person, who continues to be detained despite a bail order in his favour”, the Court held.The Court observed that the justice system must be sensitive to the plight of indigent convicts who are unable to meet bail conditions due to financial incapacity. The petitioner has been in actual custody for seven years and one month, the Court noted.“The justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious of the plight of the indigent convicts who are unable to provide local surety. For their incapacity to meet the bail terms, the applicant continues to languish in jail notwithstanding the bail order passed in his favour as far back as on 03.05.2024”, the Court said.The petitioner was convicted under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. In 2019, the Bombay High Court dismissed his appeal against conviction. Thus, he filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court granted him bail in May 2024 on terms and conditions to be decided by the trial court. However, due to his inability to furnish local surety, he continued to remain in the Kolhapur Central Prison.The Court directed the petitioner's release on his personal bond without the requirement of local surety, ensuring compliance with the bail order of May 3, 2024.Advocates Neha Rathi, Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj, Abhay Nair, Kajal Giri, and Kamal Kishore appeared for the accused.Advocates Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aagam Kaur, Aditya Krishna, Preet S Phanse, Yamini Singh, Adarsh Dubey and Kartikey appeared for the State of Maharashtra.Related - 'Virtually Rendered Bail Order Ineffective ': Supreme Court Relieves Accused From Furnishing Local SuretyCase no. – Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3363/2024Case Title – Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of MaharashtraCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 715Click Here To Read/Download Order

Travesty Of Justice If Prisoner Can't Get Benefit Of Bail Order Due To Inability To Furnish Local Surety: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags