Give accused choice to furnish surety bonds, FD, electronic money transfer or lien over bank account: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 15

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Court and the “arresting officer” should give a choice to accused granted bail with surety to either furnish surety bonds, handover a fixed deposit, direct electronic money transfer or create a lien over his bank account.

Justice Anoop Chitkara also made it clear that the accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. “The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer,” Justice Chitkara added.

The ruling came in a case where a West Bengal resident was seeking suspension of sentence after being awarded 10 years imprisonment and Rs 1 lakh fine following conviction for possessing 220 gram of heroin.

Amicus curiae or “friend of the Court” Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta submitted not suspending sentence only because the convict was a native of a distant State would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which extended to all persons residing anywhere in India and even encompassed a foreigner. He further argued that the Court or the “arresting officer” should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, given the advent of online identification.

Justice Chitkara added people worldwide were travelling more and more, covering huge distances with exponential growth in technology and the opening up of borders. Persons were living far away from their ancestral places and it exposed them to the risk of being arraigned as accused in locations distant from native places or residence. People also switched over jobs much more frequently, shifted residences overnight, and were frequently on the move.

They had started relying on dedicated digital services and platforms run by highly skilled and talented professionals. The dependence of individuals on communities appeared to be decreasing day by day. “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 favours and may not appeal to the younger generation,” Justice Chitkara added.

The Bench observed comprehensive data on role of sureties in bringing the accused to justice was absent. Fixed deposit, electronic transfer, or creating a lien over the bank account in place of cash or sureties was likely to improve the possibility of attendance because the accused would be aware that their money was safe and accruing interest. They would also keep in mind that failure to appear would lead to the forfeiture of the money.