Bail system needs to be revamped, says Madras HC judge

Chennai: Our bail system which is outdated should be revamped. It leans much towards the rich and it is against poor, observed the Madras High Court while coming to the rescue of an accused, who was unable to come out from jail due to his inability to comply with the bail conditions imposed by the lower court, even though he secured bail more than two months ago.

“I am led to believe that the rich have a cake walk while the poor suffer in silence in jail. Our bail system should be revamped. Our bail system is outdated. It leans much towards the rich. It is against poor”, said Justice P. Devadass while modifying the bail condition imposed on an accused.

The court which grants bail should pass orders in such a way that the accused should enjoy the benefit of the bail order. There is no point in passing mere paper (bail) orders, the judge added.

In the case at hand, Sundar alias Ashok was arrested and remanded on July 15, 2016 in connection with a theft case. The Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee had on November 5, 2016, granted him mandatory bail on the condition that he should execute a bond for Rs 10,000 with two sureties each. One surety shall be a blood relative and one surety shall possess an immovable property and produce the proof of residence and produce the title document for verification. He shall appear and sign before the concerned police daily for 30 days, the Magistrate had added.

Unable to comply with the condition, the accused filed the present petition in the Madras high court to modify the bail condition. Observing that in the present case, “I am in pain to note that the Magistrate while granting him bail mechanically imposed unbearable, impracticable conditions”, the judge modified the condition to the effect that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his own bond for '5,000 and he shall appear before the police as and when required for interrogation.

The judge said imposing condition in the bail order was also a judicial function. The court was bound to exercise its judicial discretion in a fair and reasonable manner.

There was no cut and dried formula. Judge's consciousness was the formula. So far as the petitioner was concerned, the bail conditions were impossible to perform. It was as good as denying him bail. If the petitioner had money or property (surety), he could have easily come out of jail on bail as early as on November 5, 2016 itself. But he could not because he was poor, the judge pointed out.

The judge said, “Actually, our bail system is not based on any cash system or is it property oriented. It is all our own creation. Innovations, which are good in nature, should be encouraged. But creations which are a hindrance to the individual liberty should be deprecated. It is a poor man’s case. It appeared to be a cry in the wilderness. A judge should deliver justice passionately”.

Justice must be tempered with mercy. Those who were in charge of delivering of justice should be more cautious as well as conscious while delivering justice also keeping in mind the common man, the judge added and modified the condition.