Kerala High Court Upholds Statutory Right to Default Bail, Strikes Down Stringent Conditions

The Kerala High Court has said in a judgement that an eligible accused person cannot be denied default bail by imposing stringent conditions that are impossible for the accused to comply with.

the Kerala High Court delivered this judgement in the matter of Vishnu Sajanan v State of Kerala on November 29 but pronounced recently.

The Court emphasized that imposing arbitrary and stringent conditions while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) violates the fundamental right of the accused to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan clarified that when imposing conditions for releasing an accused on default bail, the Court’s role is limited to ensuring that the accused will appear for trial and cooperate with the investigation.

“The default bail is a statutory right of an accused. The Court cannot deny statutory bail to an accused by imposing stringent conditions that cannot be complied with by the accused. An accused in detention shall be released on bail after the period of detention mentioned in Section 167(2) if he is prepared to furnish bail. This statutory right cannot be circumvented by imposing onerous conditions,” the Court’s order stated.

The High Court addressed this issue in response to a petition filed by a man who was the first accused in a drug possession case.

The prosecution alleged the recovery of MDMA from a place where the petitioner and others were staying.

The petitioner, arrested on the spot, was presented before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody after two unsuccessful bail applications before the Sessions Court.

The petitioner, eventually granted default bail due to the investigation not being completed within the statutory sixty-day period, challenged two conditions imposed by the trial court for his release on bail.

These conditions required the petitioner to have a close relative stand as surety and produce original property title deeds as surety.

The petitioner argued that none of his relatives were willing to stand as surety, and being from a poor background, he found it challenging to comply with the condition to provide original title deeds as surety.

The High Court, in its order, allowed the petitioner’s plea and set aside the two bail conditions under challenge. It stated, “Such arbitrary condition imposed while granting statutory bail amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right of the detenue under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The sureties can be directed to produce tax receipts instead of original title deeds of their property,” lifting the onerous conditions.

Advocates Arun Roy and Ashita Ria Merin represented the petitioner, while public prosecutor MP Prasanth represented the State.