The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling, adjusted the conditions of a bail order, emphasizing that the trial court must take into account the socioeconomic circumstances of the accused when determining the amount of sureties required.

The Bench made amendments to the bail conditions for a prisoner who had previously been granted bail by the High Court in 2023 for a criminal case. However, despite being granted bail, the prisoner remained in custody due to the inability to meet the surety requirements outlined in the bail order. The prisoner cited the absence of any family member in the State as the reason for not being able to fulfill the surety conditions set by the Court.

A Single Bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot observed, “Prima facie it appears that the trial court and the DLSA did not discharge their duties of making necessary enquiries even after the prisoner was not set forth at liberty within one week after the bail was granted by this Court in light of Arvind Singh (supra). The District Legal Services Authority has not moved any application nor preferred any advice to the applicant in light of the judgment rendered in Arvind Singh (supra) to seek a modification of the order dated 18.05.2023.”

Adovacate Yashwant Pratap Singh represented the applicant. Initially, the bail granted in 2023 was subject to providing a personal bond and two sureties, one of whom needed to be a family member, to the satisfaction of the relevant court. However, as there were no family members present in the state, the prisoner couldn't fulfill the specified conditions.

Upon reconsideration, the High Court noted that the requirement for one surety to be a family member was burdensome. It referenced its previous ruling in the case of Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., underscoring the importance for trial courts to take into account the socioeconomic circumstances of prisoners when setting surety conditions.

“Courts should examine the socioeconomic conditions of a prisoner while fixing surety conditions. Further, the Courts should not impose conditions which cannot be satisfied by the prisoner on account of his destitute circumstances or conditions of want or deprivation faced by him,” the Court remarked. 

The Court revoked the surety conditions and highlighted the failure of the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to fulfill their responsibilities of conducting necessary inquiries even after the prisoner was not released within one week of bail being granted. Consequently, the Bench instructed the trial court to reassess Beeru Kumar's bail terms considering his socioeconomic status and the observations outlined in the judgment. Furthermore, the District Judge of Deoria was assigned the responsibility of ensuring that requisite inquiries were conducted and appropriate counseling was provided to the trial judge and the DLSA.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the modification application.

Cause Title: Beeru Kumar v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:86124)