Skip to main content

Bail conditions should not be onerous: Madras High Court

Observing that imposition of onerous and stringent conditions amount to denial of bail, the Madras High Court has set aside an order of a lower court directing nine persons accused of dacoity to deposit Rs 25,000 each as cash security for availing bail. Allowing petitions by the nine accused, Justice P Devadass quashed the bail order of Tirupattur Assistant Sessions Judge holding that it was totally not in accordance with law.

He directed the petitioners, charged with offences of dacoity and causing death or grievous injuries, to furnish own bail bond for Rs.5,000 each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Central Prison at Vellore. ”Imposition of onerous and stringent conditions amount to denial of bail. Actually, our bail system is not mainly based on any cash system. If it is so, poor people have to spend rest of their life in jail itself. The object of bail is to enable the accused to go out of jail with an assurance to return to the Court to put up an effective defense.”

Further, the petitioners are poor and languishing in jail nearly for five years. Although bail was granted to them on August 21 last year, they could not yet come out of jail, indicating that the bail-condition imposed by the trial court was onerous, he held. Thus, directing poor men to deposit Rs.25,000 was against Article 21 of Constitution and also International Covenants which have been ratified by the country, he added.

The Judge also observed that when the accused are poor and unable to engage a counsel to file bail application it was the constitutional duty of the trial court in its capacity as the Chairman of the Legal Services Authority at the taluk level to nominate Legal Aid panel advocates to file bail pleas. He directed the Chairman/Sub-Judge,Taluk Legal Services Committee, Tirupattur, to engage Legal Aid Panel advocates to defend the petitioners if they have not engaged counsel. The trial court shall take all out efforts to dispose of the cases at an early date, he added.

 Article referred: http://www.india.com/news/india/bail-conditions-should-not-be-onerous-madras-high-court-345301/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more