It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable
to secure the benefit of bail order for his inability to furnish
local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution for the person, who continues to be
detained despite a bail order in his favour. {Para 6}
7. Having considered the circumstances here, we deem it
appropriate to say that the petitioner be released on bail on his
personal bond without insisting on local surety, to ensure
compliance with this Court’s bail order dated 03.05.2024.
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3363/2024
RAMCHANDRA THANGAPPAN AACHARI Vs
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
Date : 18-09-2024
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Heard Ms. Neha Rathi, learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner. The State of Maharashtra is represented by
Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh.
2. The petitioner was convicted and notice only on the question
of sentence, on his petition challenging the High Court’s order was
issued by this Court on 04.03.2024. Thereafter, on 03.05.2024, when
it was pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody for
nearly five years out of the sentence of ten years imposed upon
him, bail was granted to the petitioner on terms and conditions to
be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
3. The learned counsel submits that although, bail order was
passed as far back as on 03.05.2024, the petitioner continues to
languish in the Kolhapur Central Prison. The reason for not getting
the benefit of the bail order is because the accused/petitioner was
unable to furnish local surety.
4. The justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious of the
plight of the indigent convicts who are unable to provide local
surety. For their incapacity to meet the bail terms, the applicant
continues to languish in jail notwithstanding the bail order passed
in his favour as far back as on 03.05.2024.
5. in the context of the 10 year sentence imposed on the
applicant, Ms. Rathi would refer to the custody certificate (dated
09.11.2023) of the senior jailer of the Kolhapur Central Prison to
point out that as on today, the petitioner has been in actual
custody for seven years and one month.
6. It would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable
to secure the benefit of bail order for his inability to furnish
local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution for the person, who continues to be
detained despite a bail order in his favour.
7. Having considered the circumstances here, we deem it
appropriate to say that the petitioner be released on bail on his
personal bond without insisting on local surety, to ensure
compliance with this Court’s bail order dated 03.05.2024. It is
ordered accordingly.
8. With the above order, I.A. No.208763/2024 stands disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment