Excessive bail conditions infringe upon fundamental rights, necessitating reasonable surety to avoid penalization for seeking liberty.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

This second petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, whereby, the petitioner was ordered to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50 lakh in criminal complaint No. NACT-2408-2024 instituted on 16.04.2024 titled as ‘ Harvinder Singh Sodhi Vs. Om Enterprises ’ under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court and liberty was granted to file fresh petition as some typographical mistake was crept in the said petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that producing such a heavy surety would suffocate the fundamental right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is a trite law that imposing excessive bail condition infringes the very right of life and personal liberty of the accused protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The quantum of surety and unreasonably high amount effectively defeats the right of the petitioner to seek bail. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3314/2024 titled as ‘ Ashok Sandeep Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh ’ and submits that facts of the case are identical to the case of the petitioner. The order impugned before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was set aside in which the quantum of surety of Rs.10 lakh was set aside and was reduced to Rs.25,000/- along with the personal bond of the same amount.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, the present petition is being decided in limine, without issuing notice to the respondent in order to save litigation cost of the respondent and judicial time of the Court.

4. Personal liberty holds a pre-eminent position in our Constitutional framework, embodying the essence of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The imposition of an onerous condition such as a surety bond of Rs. 50 lakhs as a prerequisite for granting bail is antithetical to the principles of justice and fairness. Unless there exists a clear, compelling necessity for the deprivation of liberty, an individual should not be remanded to judicial custody. Judicial custody, it must be underscored, is preventive in nature and not punitive. The primary objective of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused at trial, and this objective can be achieved by imposing reasonable conditions. A surety bond of such exorbitant value cannot be deemed reasonable in good conscience, as it effectively places a monetary price on liberty, which is inherently invaluable. Deprivation of liberty must not be used as a form of punishment but rather as a measure of last resort to secure the ends of justice. The Court must remain mindful that social justice is the cornerstone of our Constitution, and no individual should be priced out of their liberty in the pursuit of justice.

5. The imposition of such an egregious condition would, in almost all cases, result in the accused being unable to furnish the required surety, thereby depriving them of their liberty and subjecting them to the harsh realities of jail life. The psychological and physical toll of incarceration during this phase can be devastating. The adverse impact extends beyond the individual to their innocent family members, who bear the burden of