Bail out accused easily ‘Put an end to professional surety system’

Cops say fake surety racket in metropolitan, sessions courts helps those charged with serious offences abscond

MUMBAI:Forty There have been cases where accused are stuck in jail because they fail to furnish the surety. The issue is never addressed even after it was raised 40 years ago by Justice Krishna Iyer.

VM KANADE, retired justice, Bombay HC

years ago justice VR Krishna Iyer had recommended the Parliament make amendments to the process of surety. However, the practice continues.

The term surety refers to the assurance of a person, generally a relative or a friend, who takes responsibility for the accused appearing in court.

A judge or magistrate orders the accused to furnish one or more people as surety, depending upon the crime committed. Against this, bail is granted to the accused.

Special public prosecutor Deepak Salvi said sureties fail because their genuineness is not determined by the court.

“It [the court] is required to determine if the person is a genuine and is capable of taking responsibility. The person who has come to stand has to prove to the judge that the accused is under his command and can produce him before the court whenever the accused is called,” said Salvi.

As per the law the person who stood surety will have to pay the amount as stated in the order if the accused fails to turn up.

“The system can work only if the court determines that the surety produced by the accused is not fake,” said Justice Abhay Thipsay, a retired high court judge.

Thipsay believes courts need to keep a check and conduct proper inquiries to ensure the person standing as surety is not assuming a fake identity.

Justice (retired) VM Kanade of the Bombay high court said that the problem lies in the requirements made of the surety.

“What if the accused is from the other district? How would he bring a local surety if he is new to the city? It is in such cases that the accused fall victim of professional surety, whose only job is to act as a surety person for the accused,” he said.

He further added that there have been cases where accused are stuck in jail because they fail to furnish the surety.

“The issue is never addressed even after it was raised 40 years ago by Justice Krishna Iyer,” Justice Kanade stated.

Despite the flaws that are being abused by those who peddle fake sureties, Thipsay feels it is important that the accused have the option of furnishing sureties because the other option would be to pay a cash bond, which would only be possible for the wealthy.

Special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam seconded this point of view.

“The key purpose of demanding surety is to make sure that accused does not abscond. It is like keeping a watchdog on the accused in the society for police,” Nikam said.