Freedom can’t be denied just because a person is poor; Court reduces amount of sureties for bail

Ajeet Pal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Uttaranchal HC

10/09/2020

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 778 of 2020

About/from the judgment:

The High Court allowed an application that was made in order to reduce the amount of sureties for bail. The petitioner was in judicial custody under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, had challenged the order passed by the Special Court Dehradun, by which, his request to reduce the amount of sureties had been rejected.

 

The applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court, but he could not get his freedom back because he could not arrange for sureties. State had argued that applicant was a resident of Uttar Pradesh and a commercial quantity of charas was recovered from him. If he was released on bail, he may not appear. But after orders of the Court he was granted bail he was required to submit sureties by the concerned court, but as stated, he could not manage the sureties consequently he moved an application from jail that the amount of sureties may be reduced, but this application was rejected by the court concerned. Thus, the instant application was filed.

 

The Court while relying on the judgment in Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 4 SCC 47, quoted that,

 

“It is interesting that American criminological thinking and research had legislative response and the Bail Reforms Act, 1966 came into being. The then President, Lyndon B. Johnson made certain observations at the signing ceremony:

 

Today, we join to recognize a major development in our system of criminal justice : the reform of the bail system.

 

This system has endued-archaic, unjust and virtually unexamined -since the Judiciary Act of 1789.

 

The principal purpose of bail is to insure that an accused person will return for trial if he is released after arrest.

 

How is that purpose met under the present system? The defendant with means can afford to pay bail. He can afford to buy his freedom. But the poorer defendant cannot pay the price. He languishes in jail weeks, months and perhaps even years before trial.

 

He does not stay in jail because he is guilty.

 

He does not stay in jail because any sentence has been passed.

 

He does not stay in jail because he is any More likely to flee before trial.

 

He stays in jail for one reason only-because he is poor . . . .”

 

The Court while reducing the amount of the sureties disposed of the application observed that they cannot deny freedom to a person just because he is poor.

Read the Judgment

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Formats for use
Please reload

Talk to our volunteer on our #Helpline

8882-498-498

Single Helpline Number For Men In Distress In India

Join our mailing list!  Stay up-to-date on upcoming projects, offers & events.

  • Follow Daaman on Facebook
  • Follow Daaman on Twitter

©2018-2020 Daaman Welfare Society & Trust.

All rights reserved.

Beware, anyone can be a victim of gender bias in society and laws! 

Don't wait: Schedule a conversation with a trusted, experienced Men's Rights Activist to find out how only awareness is the key to fight and remove prevailing gender bias against men in society.