The Gauhati High Court has clarified that the amount mentioned in a bail or surety bond cannot be treated as an amount required to be deposited in cash for securing release on bail. Justice Budi Habung observed that the amount specified in a personal/bail bond or surety bond does not mean that a cash deposit is required to be made before the police or the Court merely for securing release on bail.
The accused and the surety shall, however, be required to execute the requisite bonds in accordance with law. No authority shall insist upon the deposit of the bail-bond amount in cash merely because such amount is mentioned in the bail order.
Bail Conditions Modified
The observation came in an application under Section 483(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking modification of the bail conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, in a Bail Application. The accused, Anar Ali, had been arrested in a case under Sections 318(2) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Related: Central Govt Kids Get Local Benefit
After filing of the charge-sheet, the Magistrate granted him bail on execution of a bail bond of ₹2 lakh with one local surety for the like amount. The petitioner submitted that the accused was unable to furnish the bail bond of ₹2 lakh or arrange a local surety.
The Additional Public Prosecutor did not oppose modification of the bail conditions and submitted that similar situations arose in different parts of Arunachal Pradesh. The prosecutor sought a clarification that the amount mentioned in a bail bond or surety bond should not be treated as an amount required to be deposited in cash before the police or the Court.
Requirement of Local Surety
The High Court noted that although the accused had been found entitled to bail, he had been unable to avail himself of the benefit of the order because of his inability to furnish the stipulated bail bond and local surety. The Court said, “Thus, despite having been granted the concession of bail, the accused continues to languish in custody for more than three months. This fact, in itself, indicates that the conditions relating to the bail bond and local surety are excessive and onerous, particularly when the accused has been unable to make arrangements for the same.”
Related: Navigating TPD Claims: The Role of Lawyers in Brisbane
The Court also found the requirement of a local surety to be “excessive and unduly onerous” in the facts and circumstances of the case. “The mere fact that the accused is a resident of another State cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient ground for insisting upon a local surety, particularly when such a condition has the effect of frustrating the very order granting bail. The purpose of requiring a bond or surety is to secure compliance with the conditions of bail and to ensure the presence of the accused during the investigation and trial. Such a requirement is not intended to impose a condition which is incapable of being complied with,” the Court added.
Modified Bail Conditions
Accordingly, the Court modified the condition and directed that the accused be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount. It further directed that the surety would not be required to be a local resident, subject to verification of identity and solvency in accordance with law.
The Court stated, “It is necessary to clarify that a bail bond constitutes an undertaking or obligation undertaken by the accused in the amount specified in the bond, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. No authority shall insist upon the deposit of the bail-bond amount in cash merely because such amount is mentioned in the bail order.”
Related: Solicitor’s hardship plea is rejected
The Court directed that upon execution and acceptance of the requisite personal bond and surety bond, the accused be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case or proceeding. The remaining conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate were left unaltered.
The order was also directed to be furnished to the concerned Superintendent of Police for information and necessary circulation among the police officers under his command for compliance. The case is bail related, as seen in Shri Kamin Taloh & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr., LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 126.