VERDICTUM.

IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2281/2022 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONER/S:

VENUGOPAL
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O SREEDHARAN PILLA, HARI BHAVAN,KAMUKUMCHERI,
KARIYARA P.O, PIDAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691332
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANU
DILU JOSEPH
C.A.ANUPAMAN
C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
MANJU E.R.
ANANDHU SATHEESH
ALINT JOSEPH
PAUL JOSE

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 VERDICTUM.IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
2

“C.R.”

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

===================
Crl.M.C.No.10916 of 2023
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of January 2024

ORDER

The principle that conditions imposed while granting bail cannot

be too onerous or incapable of performance rendering the bail granted

illusory and even redundant, is elementary and needs no restatement.

However, instances are numerous where the trial courts impose

conditions that make the liberty ordered chimerical. This case

indicates the hardships of an accused involved in numerous cases.

2. Petitioner is an accused before different police stations in

different districts in Kerala, alleging offences punishable under

sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from

offences under Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Act,

2019. As many as 1726 crimes have already been registered against

him in different districts. Petitioner was taken into custody on

10.10.2022. Though petitioner is eligible to be released on bail, either

by directions of the court or by statutory bail, he has not been able to

enjoy his liberty due to his inability to produce sureties to the

satisfaction of the different courts.

 VERDICTUM.IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
3

3. Sri.C.S.Manu, learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that some of the courts are insisting on different sureties to

be furnished for each case and considering the large number of cases

registered against the petitioner, it is impossible for him to obtain or

produce different sureties. It was submitted that some of the Courts

insists on separate sureties to be provided for more than a particular

number of cases. Specific reference is made to the view expressed by

a Court at Kollam, which had refused to accept the same sureties for

more than 20 cases. Learned Counsel also submitted that some

courts are even insisting on court fee to be paid for all applications

filed by the petitioner.

4. Sri. Ashi M.C., learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that

petitioner has not produced any order refusing to accept the sureties,

and therefore, the reliefs now sought are based on assumptions.

5. I have considered the rival contentions. Though the

contention raised by the Prosecutor has force, considering the

importance of the issue the said technical objection cannot stand in

the way of this Court considering the issues raised.

6. Orders for release of an accused on bail cannot be

fustrated by the conditions imposed or the bonds directed to be

furnished. Section 440 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates that the amount

of every bond shall be fixed with regard to the circumstances of each

case, and the same shall not be excessive. Section 441 Cr.P.C. lays
 VERDICTUM.IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
4

down the nature and contents of the bail bonds to be executed by

the accused and sureties before a person is released on bail. The

purpose of having one or more sureties is to ensure that the accused

will appear for trial. Section 443 Cr.P.C. takes care of the situation

where the sureties provided are found to be insufficient at a later

point of time or when a mistake or fraud is committed.

7. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, insisting on

sureties and executing a bail bond is only to secure the presence of

the accused during trial. The surety is not a person who can be called

upon to guarantee the sum of money involved in the crime. The

surety only guarantees the presence of the accused during trial and

not for any money due from the accused. Sometimes a surety

without any property can, by virtue of his respectability in society, be

a better surety than one with immovable property. Therefore, it is

not wholly prudent to correlate the quantum involved in the crime

with the surety bond or fix a particular number of cases for a

particular surety or to restrict a surety to stand as a guarantee only

for a particular type of cases.

8. In cases where there are many crimes registered against an

accused, this Court has come across a tendency on the part of the

court granting bail to insist on furnishing separate sureties or to

furnish bonds commensurate with the quantum involved in the

criminal case. Insistence on the aforesaid two conditions is not based

 VERDICTUM.IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
5

on any legally tenable principle and is in fact opposed to law.

9. As noted earlier, petitioner is facing accusations in 1726

crimes. If separate sureties are to be furnished by the petitioner in

each of the cases registered against him, he will have to produce

more than 3400 separate sureties, which is practically impossible,

thereby rendering the concept of bail illusory. Insisting on separate

sureties for 1726 cases can render the said condition incapable of

performance, and the liberty of the petitioner may remain a mirage.

Law does not prohibit the same surety being furnished in different

cases. If the surety furnished can inspire confidence of the court on

his ability to ensure the presence of the accused during trial, there is

nothing that restrains the court from accepting the same surety in all

the different crimes. Even the value of the bond cannot be insisted to

be commensurate with the quantum involved in a crime. The courts

must bear in mind that insistence on sureties and execution of bail

bonds cannot be another ordeal or a punishment for the accused.

10. Apart from the above, insisting on court fees to be paid

on petitions filed by accused who are in custody is also contrary to

Section 72(xiii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,

1958. As per the said provision, a petition preferred by a prisoner is

not exigible to any court fee. Section 72 of the Act reads as below:

S.72. Exemption of certain documents.— Nothing contained in this Act

shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee:

 VERDICTUM.IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
6

(xiii) petition by a prisoner or other person in duress or under restraint or

any Court or its officer;

In view of the said provision, it needs no elaborate discussion that

court fees cannot be insisted on petitions filed by accused who are in

prison.

11. Therefore, the courts dealing with bail applications filed

by the petitioner in 1726 crimes against him are directed not to

insist on separate sureties in all the cases. As long as the surety is

solvent and inspires the confidence of the courts, insistence on the

production of separate sureties for each case is opposed to law.

The Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE
jm/
 VERDICTUM.IN

2024:KER:4511
CRL.MC NO. 10916 OF 2023
7

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 10916/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4-7- 2022 IN
CRL.MA NO.1 OF 2022 IN B.A.NO.4619 OF 2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT