Mandating Furnishing Of Local Surety From Individual Who Is Native Or Resident Of Another District Or State Is Defacto Denial Of Right To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
Justice Sumeet Goel, Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that requiring furnishing of a ‘local surety’ from an individual who is a native or resident of another district/State is not merely a logistical inconvenience but a profound assault on his fundamental rights. The High Court also observed that the same is a de facto denial of the right to bail.
The Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
The Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel held, “Mandating furnishing of a ‘local surety’ from an individual who is a native or resident of another district/State is not merely a logistical inconvenience; it is a profound assault on his fundamental rights and tantamount to imposition of an unduly onerous condition, which is, in itself, a defacto denial of the right to bail which ought to be accompanied by practical means of securing it, not by insurmountable hurdles. It creates an unnecessary dichotomy, where an individual from one part of the Country is treated differently from another, simply by the dint of his or her residence.”
Advocate Sumeet Goel represented the Petitioners, while AAG Vishal Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners have been permanent residents of Kolkata for more than 45 years. They were former Directors of a company and had been arraigned as accused in two cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners had furnished personal bonds to the sum of Rs 50,000. However, being outsiders, the petitioners could not arrange for sureties themselves and upon the assurance of their counsel, they were introduced to two persons. The Trial Court, while taking cognizance of the forgery,against the aforesaid two sureties, directed action against them. The SHO was directed, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to investigate the matter. Thus, the impugned FIR came to be registered against the sureties as well as the petitioners under sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was undertaken and a chargesheet was presented. It was in such circumstances that the petition was filed before the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, observed, “The enduring plight of an accused person, particularly one compelled to traverse vast distances to appear in criminal proceedings and satisfy conditions of bail, remains a regrettable lacuna in our legal system. This unfortunate state of affairs is exacerbated by the archaic courts demanding ‘local surety(s)’ as a prerequisite for release of bail.”
“Ergo, this continued insistence on ‘local surety(s)’ is a judicial anachronism that flies in the face of Constitutional principles and the dictates of common sense. It inevitably engenders an infinite ingress of action(s), undertaken by a person to secure ‘local surety’ by all and by any means to satisfy an illogical tenet of practice. It is a practice that needs to be consigned to oblivion. The Courts of law must not be held captive by a mechanical and archaic adherence to prevalent practices”, it added.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the alleged forgery was attributed to a third person Santosh. It was also noticed that the Trial Court had not recorded any finding that the petitioners had acted with any fraudulent intent. On the contrary, the Trial Court had permitted the Petitioners to furnish fresh bail bonds, thereby acknowledging their bona fides.
On a perusal of the records of the case, the Bench noticed that there was an absence of mens rea that could be legitimately attributed to the Petitioners. The Bench found that the petitioners were not complicit in the commission of offences mentioned in the FIR. The Bench also found the absence of a nexus between the petitioners and the sureties beyond their introduction through local counsel.
Thus, observing that it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the proceedings, the Bench quashed the FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.
Cause Title: Sumit Sharma v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:128529)