Socioeconomic Conditions Of Prisoner Should Be Examined While Fixing Sureties: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court modified the terms of a bail order observing that the trial court has to apply its mind to the socioeconomic conditions of the prisoner while fixing sureties.
The Bench modified the conditions for bail for a prisoner who had been granted bail in a criminal matter by the High Court in 2023. However, the prisoner was not released on bail on account of the surety conditions in the bail order. The prisoner expressed his inability to fulfil the surety conditions set by the Court due to the absence of any family member in the State.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed, “Prima facie it appears that the trial court and the DLSA did not discharge their duties of making necessary enquiries even after the prisoner was not set forth at liberty within one week after the bail was granted by this Court in light of Arvind Singh (supra). The District Legal Services Authority has not moved any application nor preferred any advice to the applicant in light of the judgment rendered in Arvind Singh (supra) to seek a modification of the order dated 18.05.2023.”
Advocate Yashwant Pratap Singh represented the applicant.
The bail initially granted in 2023 was contingent upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with one required to be a family member, to the satisfaction of the concerned court. However, with no family member present in the state, the prisoner was not able to comply with the stipulated conditions.
The High Court, upon revisiting the matter, observed that the condition requiring one surety to be a family member was onerous. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., highlighting the need for trial courts to consider the socioeconomic conditions of prisoners while fixing surety conditions.
“Courts should examine the socioeconomic conditions of a prisoner while fixing surety conditions. Further, the Courts should not impose conditions which cannot be satisfied by the prisoner on account of his destitute circumstances or conditions of want or deprivation faced by him,” the Court remarked.
The Court recalled the surety conditions and noted that the trial court and the DLSA had not discharged their duties of making necessary enquiries even after the prisoner was not set forth at liberty within one week after the bail was granted.
Consequently, the Bench directed the trial court to reexamine Beeru Kumar's bail conditions in light of his socioeconomic status and the observations made in the judgment. Additionally, the District Judge of Deoria was tasked with ensuring that necessary inquiries were conducted and appropriate counselling was provided to the trial judge and the DLSA.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the modification application.
Cause Title: Beeru Kumar v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:86124)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Yashwant Pratap Singh