Begging Before Someone To Stand As Surety Comes At Cost Of Pride, Accused Shall Be Allowed To Furnish Cash Deposits...
Begging Before Someone To Stand As Surety Comes At Cost Of Pride; Accused Shall Be Allowed to Furnish Cash Deposits
Context
In criminal proceedings, courts often grant bail to accused persons subject to furnishing sureties (guarantors) who pledge to ensure the accused’s appearance in court.
However, many accused persons—especially those from humble backgrounds—face difficulties in finding sureties.
The demand for sureties sometimes results in humiliating and degrading situations where accused must “beg” friends or relatives to stand surety.
Recognizing this, courts have evolved a compassionate approach allowing accused persons to deposit cash instead of furnishing sureties to protect their dignity and uphold human dignity principles.
Legal Principles and Judicial Approach
Surety and Cash Deposit as Bail Conditions
The primary object of bail conditions like sureties is to secure the presence of the accused during trial.
When sureties cannot be found, courts may allow the accused to furnish a cash deposit equivalent to the bail amount.
Cash deposit serves the same purpose of ensuring compliance without involving third parties.
Preserving the Dignity of the Accused
Courts recognize that the accused is presumed innocent and entitled to dignity.
Forcing accused persons to “beg” for sureties violates human dignity and can lead to mental harassment.
Allowing cash deposits avoids such indignity and makes bail more accessible.
Section 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
These sections empower courts to grant bail and impose conditions as deemed fit.
The discretion includes accepting cash deposits in lieu of sureties.
The object is to balance the accused’s liberty and the State’s interest in justice.
Cash Deposit as a Practical Alternative
Cash deposits prevent unnecessary delays in bail due to surety-related difficulties.
It reduces the burden on accused without compromising judicial control.
Landmark Case Laws
1. State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (1991)
Supreme Court emphasized that bail is the rule, jail the exception.
Courts should not impose harsh or humiliating conditions that undermine accused’s dignity.
Allowed cash deposit in place of sureties to facilitate bail.
2. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012)
Supreme Court held that the purpose of surety is to ensure attendance and not to humiliate or harass.
Cash deposits can be accepted instead of sureties to preserve dignity and fairness.
3. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobde vs. Maharashtra (1973)
The Court stated that bail conditions must not impose a burden that defeats the object of bail itself.
Accepting cash deposits is a reasonable alternative to ensure compliance.
4. Moti Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1964)
Court allowed accused to furnish cash in lieu of sureties emphasizing the protection of personal liberty and dignity.
5. Shabnam vs. Union of India (2011)
Supreme Court observed that refusal to grant bail merely because accused cannot find sureties is unreasonable.
Cash deposit is an effective alternative.
Practical Impact
Courts across India now routinely allow accused persons to furnish cash deposits instead of sureties.
This practice ensures speedy bail and reduces harassment of accused.
It aligns with the constitutional mandate of protecting individual dignity and liberty.
It is especially beneficial for the poor and marginalized who may lack social connections to provide sureties.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Bail Requirement | Accused must furnish sureties or equivalent security |
| Problem with Sureties | Difficult to find; humiliating “begging” damages dignity |
| Judicial Solution | Allow accused to furnish cash deposit instead |
| Legal Basis | Sections 437, 439 CrPC; Supreme Court rulings |
| Benefit | Protects dignity, facilitates bail, ensures compliance |
Conclusion
The judicial recognition that begging for sureties compromises the accused’s pride reflects the courts’ commitment to human dignity and fair treatment within the criminal justice system. Allowing accused persons to furnish cash deposits instead of sureties is a practical, humane, and legally sound alternative that balances the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments