‘Local surety’ requirement a judicial anachronism, says High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has decried the continued insistence on “local sureties” as a condition for bail. Describing it as a colonial vestige that undermines the constitutional guarantee of liberty and equality, Justice Sumeet Goel has held that the practice, still prevalent in many courts, effectively amounts to denial of bail and must be “consigned to oblivion”.

“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 practice of courts demanding ‘local sureties’ as a prerequisite for release of bail. This practice, a vestige of a bygone era, regrettably persists in many parts of the country, despite being subjected to judicial opprobrium for decades,” Justice Goel added.

The court asserted that mandating local sureties from an accused residing in another district or State was not only inconvenient but unconstitutional. “It is a profound assault on his fundamental rights and tantamount to imposition of an unduly onerous condition, which is, in itself, a de facto denial of the right to bail—which ought to be accompanied by a practical means of securing it, not by insurmountable hurdles.”

Referring to the discriminatory effect of the rule, the Bench observed, “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.”

Terming the insistence on local surety a relic of the past, the court said: “Ergo, this continued insistence on local sureties 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 any means to satisfy an illogical tenet of practice. It is a practice that needs to be consigned to oblivion.”

Justice Goel added the court was not oblivious to the fact that the “anachronistic practice” often prompted a rise to precarious and, at times, unethical arrangements. “In a significant number of cases, the accused, who is a stranger to the jurisdiction, is compelled to procure a local surety through local counsel, leading to a situation where the surety is a complete stranger to the accused. This is a travesty of justice, for the very purpose of a surety—to ensure the accused’s appearance in Court—is subverted when the bond is based on a transactional arrangement rather than procedural acquaintance of trust.”

The observations by Justice Goel came on a plea seeking quashing of FIR dated December 14, 2023, registered at Shivaji Nagar police station in Gurugram for cheating and other offences. The petitioners, residents of Kolkata, were arraigned as accused in two cheque bounce cases and furnished personal bonds of Rs 50,000 each. They relied upon two persons, introduced by their counsel, for securities, but their documents were found to be forged. After examining the record, the court held: “The factual milieu of the case in hand does not reflect that the petitioners were in any way involved with the preparation of the said forged/fake documents… It would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR qua the petitioners,” the court added.