HC: Accused can give FD, directly transfer money for bail surety ‘Decrease In Dependence On Communities’

 

HC: Accused can give FD, directly transfer money for bail surety

‘Decrease In Dependence On Communities’

---

Ajay.Sura@timesgroup.com

16.01.2022

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered that an accused, granted bail in relation to any case registered against him, should be given a choice to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit (FD), to secure his release due to “decrease in dependence of individuals on communities”.

As per the standard practice, the accused have to furnish surety of local persons to ensure an undertaking that he would not to run away from the law and would face the trial as and when required after his release on bail. “The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the “court” and the “arresting officer” should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien on his bank account. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the court or the arresting officer,” the HC has held.

“The generation ‘Z’ neither would like to stand as someone’s surety nor ask a stranger to stand as their surety. Against this backdrop, the youth neither appears inclined to take favours nor return. Given this, requesting someone to stand as surety might be seeking favour and may not appeal to the younger generation,” held Justice Anoop Chitkara of the HC while suspending the sentence of an NDPS case convict.

The appellant, Mahidul Sheikh, a resident of West Bengal, convicted for possessing 220 grams of heroin (Dia- cetylmorphine), was sentenced to imprisonment for10 years and a fine of Rs1 lakh, had approached the HC seeking suspension of sentence. It was argued by his counsel that the quantity of 220 grams of heroin (Diacetylmorphine) is less than commercial and thus, rigors of section 37 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) do not apply, and application for suspension of sentence is to be considered similar to the general offences. It was further stated that the quantity involved is intermediate, whereas the Court has imposed the maximum sentence apart from forfeiting the money recovered from the house.

Counsel appearing for state opposed the suspension of sentence and contended that grant of bail encourages drug peddlers, and the drug menace is spreading day by day. It was also submitted that the convict resides in a faraway place, and in case of dismissal of the appeal, it would be challenging to arrest him if he does not surrender to face the sentence.

However, advocate Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, who had assisted the HC as amicus curiae, submitted that not suspending the sentence only because the convict is a native of a distant state would violate Article 21 of the Constitution India, which extends to all persons residing anywhere in India and even encompasses a foreigner.

Amicus argued that given the advent of online identification, while granting bail with sureties, the “court” or “the arresting officer” should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, impliedly informing the accused of CrPC’s Section 445. Observations “The menace of securing sureties by payment is well known within the legal fraternity. The people have established a flourishing business of procuring sureties. Substituting surety with fixed deposit or bank transfer or bank lien is likely to address the corrupt system of unscrupulous stock sureties, throwing them out of highly questionable and unethical practices. . . ,” said Justice Anoop Chitkara