Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sakthivel, J
Mugali Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Muthuraja
For the Respondents: V. Meganathan

Bail conditions requiring a government surety are considered overly onerous and should be modified to ensure that the accused is not unfairly deprived of liberty, focusing instead on the reliability and sufficiency of sureties for the ensurement of attendance at trial.

Headnote:The petitioner moved the High Court challenging a bail condition imposed by the trial court requiring one of the two sureties to be a government surety. The petitioner sought modification of the bail conditions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court evaluated the necessity and feasibility of the challenged condition in light of judicial discretion and the fundamental right to liberty, finding the condition overly onerous. The core issue addressed was whether a trial court is justified in mandating a government employee as a surety for the release of an accused on bail. The court reasoned that inalienable rights to bail should not be restricted by conditions that are difficult for an average accused to fulfill, as the primary objective of surety is ensuring the presence of the accused during trial rather than imposing arbitrary obligations. The court ordered modification of the bail condition, thereby removing the requirement for a government surety while maintaining the demand for two reliable sureties.

Table of Content
1. summary of bail conditions and the pending request for modification. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court's authority to modify bail conditions to ensure they are not overly burdensome. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to modify one of the conditions as normal surety to the satisfaction of Principal Special Court under Essential Commodities (EC) Act and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, Chennai, instead of sureties one among the sureties to be a government surety passed in Crl.M.P.No.2204 of 2026 in Crl.M.P.No.

2009 of 2026.

2.Earlier, the Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, granted bail to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2009 of 2026, dated 15.04.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with certain conditions. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2204 of 2026 seeking to modify the condition imposed against him “that the petitioner shall execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) along with two acceptable and reliable sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Thiruvallur. One among the sureties to be a Government Surety”, and the same was ordered by the Trial Court on 29.04.2026.

3.Heard both sides and perused the records.

4.After hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to modify the said condition imposed against the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No. 2204 of 2026, dated 29.04.2026 to the effect “that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- along with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvallur.

5.The rest of the conditions imposed against the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.2009 of 2026, dated 15.04.2026 shall remains unaltered.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is ordered.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 46015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASR. Sakthivel, JMugali Vasu – AppellantVersusInspector of Police – RespondentCriminal Original Petition

Bail conditions requiring a government surety are considered overly onerous and should be modified to ensure that the accused is not unfairly deprived of liberty, focusing instead on the reliability and sufficiency of sureties for the ensurement of attendance at trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sakthivel, J
Mugali Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition