New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would be a travesty of justice if an accused is unable to secure the benefit of bail order for his inability to furnish local surety, as the justice delivery mechanism cannot be oblivious of the plight of the indigent convicts.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti directed for release of the petitioner, Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari on bail on his personal bond without insisting on local surety, to ensure compliance with this court’s bail order of May 03, 2024.
Advocate Neha Rathi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted although, bail order was passed as far back as on May 03, 2024, he continued to languish in the Kolhapur Central Prison. She said the reason for not getting the benefit of the bail order is because he was unable to furnish local surety.
The petitioner has been in actual custody for seven years and one month, out of sentence of 10 years in POCSO Act case.
"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," the bench said.
The court noted the petitioner was convicted and notice was issued only on the question of sentence, on his petition.
The petitioner challenged the Bombay High Court’s order of June 15, 2022 upholding his conviction and sentence.
After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "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 May 03, 2024".
Published 18 September 2024, 18:21 IST
