Delay in accepting bail bonds unacceptable: Delhi HC to jail officials

The court was of the view that the object of granting bail and suspending the sentence of a prisoner is to release the inmate from imprisonment

The Delhi high court has taken suo moto cognizance of a delay by jail superintendents in accepting bail bonds and releasing inmates who have been granted bail, saying that the said deferral is not acceptable to its conscience.

The court took suo moto cognizance of the matter while considering an application filed by a man who was not released despite the suspension of his sentence on February 8. (HT Archive)

The court was of the view that the object of granting bail and suspending the sentence of a prisoner is to release the inmate from imprisonment.

“In certain cases, interim bails are granted on medical grounds or some other exigencies, as expressed by the applicant. In such a scenario, this court fails to understand why the period of one to two weeks be taken by the Jail Superintendent for accepting the bail bonds,” justice Amit Mahajan said in a February 19 order.

The court took suo moto cognizance of the matter while considering an application filed by a man who was not released despite the suspension of his sentence on February 8. In the case in question, the court had suspended the man’s sentence and had directed for his release, pursuant to furnishing a bail bond to the satisfaction of the jail superintendent.

The man had sought modification of the order to the extent of allowing him to furnish the bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial court instead of the concerned jail superintendent, claiming that the latter had still not processed the bonds.

The judge, in a 4-page order, also said, “The court, while passing bail order, at times directs that the bail bond be directly furnished to the jail superintendent. The prisoner is not remitted to the trial court in order to facilitate the immediate release. The delay at the instance of the jail superintendent in accepting bail bonds is not acceptable to the conscience of this court. Let the matter be registered as suo motu petition and numbered.”

The court also took note of the fact that its orders were being sent to the concerned jail authorities directly to the concerned jail authorities through Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records (FASTER) cell, and thus sought responses from the director general (prisons) and the Delhi government’s standing counsel (criminal).

Appearing for the Delhi Police, additional standing counsel Nandita Rao submitted that such instances were an aberration, and that delays do not generally occur on part of jail superintendents.

To be sure, the Supreme Court in 2021 with a view to reduce delay caused in forwarding the bail orders to jail authorities and adopt FASTER had directed chief secretaries of all states and union territories to ensure availability of internet facility with adequate speed in each and every jail and take steps for arranging internet facility expeditiously wherever the same is not available.