Alarmingly, Parallel Network Has Emerged: Allahabad High Court Directs Courts To Release Accused Or Convicts On ‘Single Surety’

The Allahabad High Court has directed all Courts of Uttar Pradesh to release the accused or convicts on a ‘single surety’, subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or the Court concerned.

The Court was hearing an Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the Summoning Order passed by the Trial Court.

A Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed, “As rightly observed in Shiv Shyam Pandey (supra), and in subsequent sting of judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, the present matter in question reflects misuse of authority by both the police and the Magistrate. In district courts across the State, the routine and indiscriminate imposition of a requirement to furnish two sureties- often with bond amounts proportionate to the gravity of the alleged offence- has become an onerous burden, not only upon the accused but also upon the justice delivery system as a whole. Alarmingly, a parallel network has emerged in district courts involving fake sureties and forged surety bonds, often in connivance with local police personnel.”

Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and Amicus Curiae Satyaveer Singh represented the Applicant/Accused while AGA represented the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

As per the prosecution case, the Applicant-accused was the proprietor of a retail paint shop. On spot inspection by the officers of the authorised company, the accused was found selling counterfeit Asian Paints products, and huge quantity of counterfeit paints were recovered from her shop. However, the accused’s case was that she had procured paint products from a wholesale distributor through valid tax invoices/receipts issued at the time of purchase. The paints were sold from her retail outlet in the ordinary course of business.

A chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The counsel for the accused submitted that she had no knowledge or reason to believe that the paint products or packaging received from the wholesaler were counterfeit or adulterated and even assuming the allegations to be true on their face, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence are not satisfied.

Court’s Directions

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, issued the following directions to give effect to the Constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution and to secure the ends of justice –

(i) All District Judges shall ensure that, in cases where the charge sheet has been filed without arrest- whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by Investigating Officer, or the accused had secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 528 of the BNSS and duly cooperated during investigation- the Trial Court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to summons, nor insist upon filing of regular or anticipatory bail applications.

(ii) At the stage of proceedings under Sections 88, 170, 204, and 209 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Sections 91, 190, 227 and 232 of BNSS), the Trial Court- whether presided over by a District Judge, Additional District and Sessions Judge, or Magistrate- shall inform the accused of his right to furnish a personal bond at the first instance, and may require surety subsequently, if necessary.

(iii) Immediately after appearance of accused in response to summons, the Court shall comply with Sections 230 and 231 of BNSS, 2023, committing the case to the Court of session when exclusively triable by it, and proceed to the next trial stage without unnecessary delay.

(iv) When the Trial Court encounters such anticipatory bail or protective orders under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS specifying protection till the filing of the charge-sheet, or direct that "no coercive action"/"stay on arrest shall operate until filing of charge sheet", these protections shall be deemed to continue until the conclusion of trial.

(v) The Joint Director (Prosecution) in each district shall maintain detailed records of all such cases where Trial Courts remanded accused persons to custody, despite charge-sheets being filed without prior arrest.

(vi) All Jail Superintendents shall maintain corresponding records of such cases.

(vii) The Additional Director General of Police (Prosecution), Directorate of Prosecution, Lucknow, shall compile an annual, centralised record of all such instances, based on data from Joint Directors (Prosecution), and Jail Superintendents.

(viii) The Director, JTRI, Lucknow, shall ensure sustained training programmes for judicial officers to secure compliance with this Order.

(ix) The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, in coordination with District Court Bar Associations, shall conduct regular legal awareness camps to educate and sensitise advocates on these directions.

(x) District Judges shall submit monthly reports to the High Court containing: (a) the number of cases in which judicial remand was ordered despite no prior arrest; (b) feedback on judicial training and compliance with these directions; and (c) details of legal awareness camps conducted.

(xi) District Judges shall endorse: “Read, understood, and discussed with fellow judges of the district”, and, after deliberating on this Judgment with their fellow judges, submit a report to this effect to the Registrar General of the Court immediately upon receipt of a copy of the Order.

Conclusion

The Court further directed that the mandatory requirement of two sureties are dispensed with, and henceforth, (i) the accused(s)/convict(s), as the case may be, shall be released on a "single surety", subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate or the Court concerned– the satisfaction shall drive from the socio- economic condition of the accused- and that the surety bond amount be fixed in accordance with the financial strength of the accused.

“In case, the accused(s) is unable to produce sound surety within seven days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the Secretary, DLSA who may depute from para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release, besides other directions contained in order dated 31.1.2023 passed in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (supra), and (ii) if the accused has been booked in multiple cases (FIRs) even across many states, the court shall forthwith release the accused -if secures bail in all cases- in the light of Girish Gandhi v. State of U.P. and Others (supra)”, it added.

Coming back to the case, the Court agreed that during the spot inspection conducted at the Applicant's premises by the authorised representative of SGS IPR Consultancy- the complainant- a substantial quantity of counterfeit Asian Paints products was recovered, indicating that the Applicant was deriving significant illegal profit.

“As regards the applicant's knowledge and intention to earn such profit, these matters are to be examined during trial and can only be determined after the prosecution witness has deposed. The applicant shall be at liberty to raise all relevant contentions at the stage of framing of charge, and the trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Application, directed the accused to appear before the Trial Court and furnish a bail bond, and directed the Registry to forthwith transmit a copy of the Order to all the District Judges.

Cause Title- Bacchi Devi v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:136034)

Click here to read/download the Judgment