Seeking Pre-Deposit Of Bank Guarantee For Grant Of Bail Is Unsustainable: SC
Seeking Pre-Deposit of Bank Guarantee for Grant of Bail is Unsustainable
1. Introduction
Bail is a right and an important facet of the criminal justice system aimed at safeguarding individual liberty.
Conditions imposed for bail must be reasonable, just, and legal.
The practice of demanding pre-deposit of bank guarantees or cash deposits as a condition for bail is increasingly challenged as being arbitrary, harsh, and legally untenable.
2. Why Pre-Deposit as Bail Condition is Unsustainable
Bail is not a commercial transaction: Bail is meant to ensure the presence of the accused during trial, not a source of revenue or coercion.
Violation of the principle of presumption of innocence: Pre-deposit conditions effectively amount to punishing the accused before trial.
Access to justice impeded: Not all accused persons have means to furnish bank guarantees or deposits; it denies bail to the poor.
No statutory backing: The CrPC does not authorize courts to impose pre-deposit of money or bank guarantees as a mandatory bail condition.
Contrary to spirit of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
3. Supreme Court’s Position and Case Laws
The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that:
Bail conditions must be reasonable and tailored to the facts of the case.
Courts cannot impose monetary conditions that amount to punitive measures.
Pre-deposit of bank guarantees as a condition for bail is arbitrary and unsustainable.
4. Key Supreme Court Judgments
1. Babu Ram v. State of Haryana (1985) 1 SCC 645
The Court held that bail conditions cannot be imposed in an arbitrary manner.
Bail is a right unless exceptional circumstances exist.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447
Bail should not be denied merely on the ground of seriousness of offence or financial condition of the accused.
No unreasonable conditions should be imposed.
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
Emphasized that arrest and pre-trial restrictions should be exceptional.
Bail must be granted liberally.
4. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) 5 SCC 265
Supreme Court quashed a bail condition demanding pre-deposit.
Court observed that demanding deposit or bank guarantee for bail is contrary to principles of natural justice and fair play.
Bail conditions must be related to ensuring attendance and public safety, not financial transactions.
5. Laxman Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC Online SC 1234
The Court struck down the practice of demanding bank guarantees as a mandatory condition for bail.
Affirmed that monetary conditions cannot be imposed as a precondition for liberty.
5. Legal Principles Emanating
Bail is a rule; jail is an exception.
Monetary or financial conditions on bail must be reasonable, proportionate, and related to the case facts.
Courts have discretion but must not convert bail into a money-extracting exercise.
Bail conditions should promote fairness and access to justice.
Arrest and detention must not become tools of oppression.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Bail’s Nature | A right, not a commercial transaction |
| Monetary Conditions on Bail | Should be reasonable, not punitive or arbitrary |
| Bank Guarantee as Bail Condition | Arbitrary, unsustainable, denies access to liberty |
| Supreme Court’s Stance | Bail conditions demanding pre-deposit struck down |
| Constitutional Safeguard | Right to personal liberty (Article 21) |
| Practical Impact | Protects poor and vulnerable accused from unjust detention |
7. Conclusion
The Supreme Court has consistently held that demanding pre-deposit of bank guarantees as a condition for granting bail is legally unsustainable and arbitrary. Bail conditions must be just and reasonable, ensuring the accused’s liberty without compromising the interests of justice. This protects the foundational principle of presumption of innocence and prevents misuse of bail as a tool for financial exploitation or coercion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments