Upholding Justice: Kerala HC Strikes Down Unjust Bail Conditions

In a recent landmark ruling, the Kerala High Court has asserted the inviolability of Article 21 by declaring that imposing arbitrary and stringent conditions on default bail is a violation of fundamental rights. The case sheds light on the challenges faced by the accused in securing bail under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the broader implications for the right to life and personal liberty.

The petitioner, facing charges under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, found himself in judicial custody after being discovered in possession of MDMA. Despite sixty days in custody and an ongoing investigation, the Sessions Court in Ernakulam granted bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC, subject to stringent conditions.

The contested bail conditions included requiring a close relative, despite being insolvent, as one of the sureties. Additionally, three sureties were mandated, with the relative and two others providing property documents for verification—a demand that proved onerous for the petitioner, hailing from a low-income family.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan emphasized that the court’s role in setting bail conditions is to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial and cooperation with the investigation, not to impede their statutory right to default bail. The court observed that the accused has a fundamental right to default bail, and imposing onerous conditions to circumvent this right is impermissible.

The High Court accepted the petitioner’s plea, revoking the contested bail requirements. Notably, the court affirmed that imposing arbitrary conditions during the grant of bail violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, protecting the detainee’s fundamental rights. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s stance, emphasizing the removal of excessively strict conditions if deemed unjust by the petitioner.

A detailed exploration of Section 167(2) of CrPC reveals the magistrate’s powers concerning the accused’s detention and the various provisions for different investigation scenarios. The section provides a safeguard, ensuring that an accused is released on bail if the investigation exceeds the stipulated time frame.

Article 21 grants every individual, irrespective of citizenship, the right to life and personal liberty. Described as the “heart of fundamental rights” by the Indian Supreme Court, Article 21 ensures protection against arbitrary state actions. The right to a meaningful and dignified life is inherent in this fundamental right.

The article delves into the Ritu Chabbria judgment, where the Court upheld the right to default bail as a fundamental right emanating from Article 21. The judgment emphasized protection against the arbitrary power of the state and reaffirmed the accused’s entitlement to default bail if investigations extend beyond the mandated time frame.

The right to default bail, rooted in Section 167(2) of CrPC, guarantees the accused’s release from custody if investigations are not completed within the specified period. The article clarifies that the merits of the case or the severity of the offence do not affect the entitlement to default bail.

The Kerala High Court’s intervention in this case exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and protecting fundamental rights. By striking down unjust bail conditions, the court sends a powerful message about the sanctity of the statutory right to default bail and the need to prevent arbitrary impediments to legal recourse. This ruling underscores the vital role of the judiciary in ensuring a fair and just legal process for all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic background.