Let accused decide method of payment for bail, says High Court

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 the accused to be granted bail with either furnishing 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.

Switching options

The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the court or the arresting officer. —Justice Anoop Chitkara, High Court

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 gm of heroin.

Amicus curiae or “friend of the court” Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta submitted that not suspending the sentence 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.

The Bench observed that comprehensive data on the role of sureties in bringing the accused to justice was absent. Fixed deposit or electronic transfer in place of cash or sureties was likely to improve the possibility of attendance.