JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Mateen, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The applicant has been enlarged on bail in all two cases lodged against him. The trial court has fixed a separate surety for each case. However he has not been set at liberty as he is unable to arrange sureties in aforesaid two cases. The aforesaid cases are connected to the offences committed by the company against different investors.

3. The prayer made by Sri Mohd. Mateen, learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant may be permitted to produce a single surety for the aforesaid two cases so that he is set at liberty in pursuance of the bail order. The learned counsel contends that he cannot make good the said demand of two separate sureties due to financial penury. Relying on various authorities of constitutional courts it is submitted that the demand of two sureties is arbitrary. Learned AGA contends that sureties serve an important role. But fairly admits that sureties should be reasonable:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.” [Anatole France]

4. The right of bail is entrenched in the charter of fundamental liberties of the Constitution by high judicial authorities. The necessity of appropriate sureties for a criminal trial cannot be denied. The trial court while determining the sureties needs to satisfy twin requirements. The trial court has to balance and correlate the imperative of setting prisoners at liberty pursuant to the bail order and securing their fundamental rights with the demand of producing adequate sureties as an assurance of their regular attendance at the trial and a deterrence against flight from justice.

5. The trial court should factor the socioeconomic circumstances of the prisoner while fixing sureties. Many persons belonging to the downtrodden sections of the society simply do not have requisite social standing to arrange multiple sureties, or the financial clout to satisfy prohibitive surety demands. Persons belonging to poor economic strata or socially marginalized segments of the society may not be set at liberty despite being enlarged on bail in case inordinate sureties are demanded of them or they are required to submit multiple sureties. Onerous surety conditions which have no connection with the socio-economic status of the prisoner will negate the order granting bail, and undermine the fundamental right of liberty of the prisoner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The purpose of sureties is dissuasive in intent, but unrealistic surety demands are punitive in effect. The Indian Constitution does not put a price tag on liberty.

6. The report of legal aid committee headed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as C.J. of Gujarat High Court) later Chief Justice of India (as His Lordship then was) dealt into the infirmities in the system of bails which put liberty beyond the reach of poor prisoners since the latter could not furnish bail even in a small amount. The relevant parts of the report are extracted hereunder:

“.....The bail system, as we see it administered in the criminal courts today, is extremely unsatisfactory and needs drastic change. In the first place it is virtually impossible to translate risk of nonappearance by the accused into precise monetary terms and even its basic premise that risk of financial loss is necessary to prevent the accused from fleeing is of doubtful validity. There are several considerations which deter an accused from running away from justice and risk of financial loss is only one of them and that too not a major one. The experience of enlightened Bail Projects in the United States such as Manhattan Bail Project and D.C. Bail Project shows that even without monetary bail it has been possible to secure the presence of the accused at the trial in quite a large number of cases. Moreover, the bail system causes discrimination against th