E-Paper
Panchkula: Man walks free after sessions court slams ‘atrocious’ ₹2.35 lakh bail bond condition
The ruling, delivered on October 15 by Sessions Judge Ved Parkash Sirohi, paved the way for Pardeep Kumar, 28, to walk free after spending over two-and-a-half months in jail despite being granted bail earlier. The court reduced his bail requirement to a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety.
A sessions court has sharply criticised and modified a chief judicial magistrate’s (CJM) bail order that had required a Dera Bassi man to furnish bonds to the tune of ₹2.35 lakh to be released on bail, terming the condition “atrocious, arbitrary, unreasonable and illogical.”
The ruling, delivered on October 15 by Sessions Judge Ved Parkash Sirohi, paved the way for Pardeep Kumar, 28, to walk free after spending over two-and-a-half months in jail despite being granted bail earlier. The court reduced his bail requirement to a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety.
Judge Sirohi held that the unreasonably high surety amount violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The sessions judge also cited sub-section (1) of Section 484 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, which states that the amount of every bond “shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.”
Kumar had challenged the August 2 order of CJM Ajay Kumar through a revision petition filed on October 3. He had been arrested on March 16 in a case registered under Section 303 (theft) and 317(2) (stolen property) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at the Sector 5 police station. He had been in judicial custody since May 19. The CJM court granted him bail on August 2 with a condition that he had to furnish personal bonds of ₹2.35 lakh with two local sureties.
Kumar’s counsel argued that the CJM had imposed “unreasonable and arbitrary conditions”. He highlighted that Pardeep is a poor person and his family’s poor economic condition made it impossible for him to furnish the hefty bonds.
The counsel further contended that the maximum punishment for the offences in question is three years and the accused had already spent six months in custody.
Conversely, the public prosecutor opposed the petition, arguing that the accused was involved in multiple cases of a similar nature, justifying the substantial bond amount and the condition of two local sureties. The sessions judge ruled that the unreasonably high surety amount was “defeating the very purpose of bail” and allowed him to be released after completing the revised bail formalities before the duty magistrate.
